In recent months, climate change skeptics have ramped up their efforts in the media and Congress to misrepresent the scientific consensus on global warming. They have questioned the integrity of climate researchers and claimed that reducing carbon emissions would wreck our national economy. Such tactics are meant to sow confusion and lull the public into a dangerous complacency.
In response, scientists must communicate their research methods and findings more broadly and more effectively. More than 2,000 economists and scientists recently called on "our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions." That is a step in the right direction.
But scientists do not have a bully pulpit. President Obama does -- and the public desperately needs him to use it.
The president clearly understands the urgency to act on global warming. Shortly after the election in November 2008, he said his administration would chart a course to reducing U.S. emissions of heat-trapping gases 80 percent by 2050 -- the amount that climate scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophe. "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear," he stated. "Delay is no longer an option."
Since taking office, the president has spoken frequently about the role of clean energy technologies in creating millions of new jobs and revitalizing the economy. His fiscal stimulus bill put tens of billions of dollars into strategic investments in these technologies, and his administration has taken other important steps, including a rule that will make the new car and light truck fleet 40 percent more fuel efficient by 2016. He has brought members of Congress, business leaders, and others to the White House to build support for comprehensive climate and energy legislation.
These are all important steps and represent a complete reversal from the policies of the previous administration. An increased commitment to energy efficiency, renewable energy and other clean energy technologies is essential to U.S. leadership in the clean energy economy of the 21st century. But there is one issue on which the president can, and should, say much more: the strong scientific evidence on human-induced climate change and its impacts on the United States, and the rapidly closing window for action.
Last year, on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an expert team of scientists summarized the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future, and called the evidence of a warming climate "unequivocal," primarily due to the use of fossil fuels - coal, oil, and gas - and the loss of forests. The report emphasized that "sizable early cuts in emissions would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change. Earlier cuts in emissions would have a greater effect in reducing climate change than comparable reductions made later."
As the president travels around the country, he should alert citizens to these mounting costs of inaction. As temperatures rise, so do their consequences, and so does the importance of reducing emissions. Midwestern farmers could face more frequent days of extreme heat, heavier spring rains, and wider-ranging crop-damaging pests. California faces temperature increases that will affect agriculture, worsen the risk of large wildfires, and reduce the winter snowpack that is so important to year-round water supply.
The president should bring together scientists and others with relevant expertise for a White House summit on climate science, the urgency of action, and the opportunity for timely solutions. The headliners of this event should include the president and the government's own experts -- people like White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco -- each of them superb scientists in their own right.
In addition, the president's secretaries of defense and homeland security should communicate to the public that climate change has the potential to produce serious threats to national security. It could endanger global water and food supplies and flood coasts with rising seas; these impacts, in turn, could trigger mass migrations and violent conflicts. The bottom line: Climate change is likely to exacerbate the conditions that foster violent extremism, with weakened and failed states being especially vulnerable.
President Obama just brokered a new treaty limiting nuclear weapons with Russia, moving another step toward his long-term goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Now it is time for him to step up his efforts on another major threat to the future of the planet. The president should deliver a major speech on climate change to the American public, using all the props and charts he can muster to bring the message home. The public interest requires it.
The scientific community has long known that emissions from burning fossil fuels are changing Earth's climate. President Obama is uniquely qualified to cut through the fog created by misleading and manufactured controversies by telling the American public the truth. As he leads, our country will respond.
James J. McCarthy, the Alexander Agassiz professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University, is the immediate past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and chairman of the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Timothy E. Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, represented Colorado in the U.S. House and Senate from 1974 to 1992 and has served as undersecretary of state for global affairs.
If Earth absorbs all our CO2 emissions, then NO. But if not, then very likely YES, since CO2 is a greenhouse gas that also initiates a host of other positive temperature feedbacks. So...
Earth's radius = ~6,370,000 meters.
Scale Height of the atmosphere (height if it were all at sea level pressure) ~8 km.
Air Density at sea level: ~1.29 kg per cubic meter
So, mass of atmosphere (4PI r squared x height) is: 4PI x 6,370,000m2 x 8,000m x 1.29 kg/m3 = ~5.26 quadrillion metric tons.
How much of it is CO2?
At a current 388 ppmv, it's (388/1,000,000) x 5.26 quadrillion tons = ~2.04 trillion tons.
So, 1 ppm of CO2 is 2.04T/388 = 5.26 billion tons. But by volume 1 ppmv of CO2 is 44/29 (relative molecular weights CO2 vs. air) x 5.26 = 8 billion tons.
So, humans add 35/8 = ~4.4ppmv of CO2 annually, while it's rising 2.2ppmv per year.
This says that Earth absorbs only half our CO2 emissions. Ergo, global temperature is rising.
The above is also completely consistent with more detailed carbon inventories,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction
But check this yourself. No outside authority needed, just a calculator and web access
RE: (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.
A poll by Doran and Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. 76 of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believe human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence global temperatures.
In 2007 Harris randomly surveyed 489 members of the American Meteorological Society or American Geophysical Union. 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; only 5% believe human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. 84% believed that global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger."
There are NO scientific organizations of national or international standing that still reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. The following science organizations regard global warming as real and mostly man-made: The science Academies of: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the USA.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
U.S. National Research Council
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association (paleoclimatologists)
International Union for Quaternary Research (paleoclimatologists)
Society of American Foresters
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Even the American Institute of Petroleum Geologists torqued their tune in 2009. To wit: "In the last century growth in human populations has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important. This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies."
www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/pliocene/page2.html
www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
National Academy of Sciences
books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere
www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/permafrost/currentPermafrost.aspx
Environmental Protection Agency
epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK
royalsociety.org/Climate-Science-Statement/
American Geophysical Union
www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
American Meteorological Society
www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research
eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society
www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Australian climate data
www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
and the ''missing'' CO2?
oh.. never mind:
Blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria, grow in vast numbers in the sunlit surface waters of the oceans, the photic zone. They use sunlight to 'fix' carbon by converting carbon dioxide into sugars and other organic compounds through photosynthesis.
algae ''uses'' sunlight? and CO2 too? so the joule thief is fn bacteria???
no way!!!
way..
that's twice now you've tried to project your point into my post..
is O=^12C=O as ir-active as O=^13C=O or O=^14C=O
or even O=H=O and why would it even matter?
I agree - as long as both sides of the debate are represented. Unfortunately, if this WH were to hold a summit, I suspect all you'd see is Gore, Pachauri, Jones, Mann, Hansen, and a bunch of rent-seekers pushing for scams like cap&trade and carbon offsets. Maybe throw in Paul Ehrlich for some misfired doom and gloom predictions.
If you want a summit, send Gore, Pachauri and the rent-seekers home, keep the scientists, then add scientists from the counter-point (Lindzen, Christy, Pielke, et al) and let the scientists hash out how much the globe is warming, why, and what it really means.
They did that a couple decades ago. Where have you been? Besides, reading thermometers is not rocket science.
Why would you think scientists would even consider having Al Gore involved in a debate? He's not a scientist. You would probably suggest Gore debate some spokesperson from the right maybe? Unfortunately for you, no one on the right seems to have a clue so that would be pointless.
No, reading thermometers is not rocket science - but interpreting the results is. These scientists aren't debating actual temps, but "temp anomoly" - ie: change from baseline. This is calculated through complex (and not necessarily consistent) manipulation of the raw data. Data is "homogenized" from the raw data. The homogenized data is then "corrected" (differently by different scientists - compare GISS to UAH to CRU) for UHI. And in some cases, where gaps appear in the land-based data, results are "extrapolated" from nearby stations.
Then there is the matter of temp record not covered by thermometers, requiring proxy measurements and interpretation.
Are these the same economists of which the "consensus" of 98% failed to see the Global Financial Crisis coming? High order math and sophisticated computer modeling failed to predict this even when everyone could see the largest asset inflation in history as peoples house doubled and tripled in value? Now we're supposed to simply fall in line when you say there is a "consensus"? Based on what? Computer models? Come on, such models are often fit to a given set of incorrect assumptions, just like economics.
And then the so called "solution" of Cap and Trade (non-solution) is the biggest give away to Wall Street ever invented?
Keep your consensus and show proof that the warming is solely due to man and not other mechanisms. If then this proves true, propose real solutions that don't further fatten the elite class.
How about you look to something a little more intuitive, like biological trends matching climate change predictions: http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf
How about govt subsidized everyone Lion batteries with a national recycling system and standardization? EV's with govt supplied batteries could be had for $5k. The scale of such a program would make it much cheaper. Now this would have a real impact since it is very true that we are running out of fossil fuels.
Climate change, while important, is not the problem. It is one *symptom* of the problem. Another symptom is habitat loss. Another is deforestation. Another is overfishing. Another is water pollution.
Green technologies are like trying to hold back Niagara Falls with a bucket. Green technologies allow we endlessly-in-denial humans to pretend we can design our way out of a problematic box using technology. Hey, that's easy and requires little sacrifice. However, it will also lead to a future with no room for wildlfie, and only delays the inevitable: Until human beings stop reproducing like rabbits, we are setting ourselves up for total devastation of the planet.
Please, young women, you control our future. Have zero, one, or two children. We need to slowly ramp back the population to 3 billion or so.
your politicians and their big corporation buddies (and others) are not busting their backsides
to protect themselves and their family/friends against this "end of the world scare?"
The subconscious fear of death causes a lot of denial when people feel personally threatened.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/04/confusing-civilization-with-species.html
I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the tens of thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.
There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
Having had a Google Alert on the phrase for some months I can confirm that almost every news source other than the Huff Post has now, if belatedly, distanced itself from the claim. Perhaps somebody here wil be able to provide the names nobody else can ;-)
1st, I'm pretty sure that atmosphere scientist is a job position mostly limited to government sponsored labs or research facilities.
2nd, I'm guessing that what you label "alarmist" is anyone that differs with your view
3rd, Most credible scientist within the field do believe in GW. The so called petition was recently threatened with a law suit be several supposed signers for misrepresenting them (their signatures were subsequently removed)
It's about control
You say that as though Barack were in a position to provide the definitive answer. I suspect that he realizes this is beyond his capabilities as a mere human being. He appreciates his own limitations in that respect. Even if others, including some scientists, do not.
“scientists must communicate their research methods and findings more broadly and more effectively”
Isn’t what you are asking for, a fundamental precept of science? The fact that you are having to demand it, may suggest why their prophesies don’t prevail with the people.
“But scientists do not have a bully pulpit”
There would appear to be a dichotomy here. On one hand scientists are absolutely convinced that we are confronting our own home-made Armageddon? Yet on the other, they don’t really want to be seen as making an unseemly fuss about it.
“telling the American public the truth”
The truth is, we don’t know if we know the truth. What we can say for certain however, is that the prime requirement is to preserve humanity from all threats that imperil it. And the best way to do that is to capitalise on our collective ingenuity as a species.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=209&&a=17
Now, please go and ask Frank Luntz for your new talking points.
I could write a tight narrative about climate change and our food supply, cogently addressing an important point and moving the discussion forward, but I don't.
I chose to make a tiny point about Obama's leadership and where I'd like him to lead. 821 words, with a side step into nuclear energy, and I'm done. Whew, this reporting stuff is hard...
To solve this problem we are trying to move to Cap and Trade, a policy that has failed dismally in Europe, while making fuel out of food while millions starve. It's a “Crime against humanity” according to the Pope.
Just think of all the good that could be done for the poor of this world if we accepted one half degree temperature rise in four decades.
“Give me the courage to change those things than can be changed, the serenity to accept what can not be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference”
By any cost analysis saving human life now is far more valuable than saving one half degree of temperature.
Global Warming has become a Religion with Mother Gaea. as their God. Remember you never as questions when God's on your side.
You're using Lomorg's arguments, which only have merit if you find no connections between an energy revolution and poverty reduction - and if you actually DO put more resources toward poverty reduction. He sees mitigation as a zero sum game, and has good reason to confuse people. http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/the-danish-tailor-and-emperor-establishment/
Zero-sum game: "In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value of money (or utility). Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum, because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. Zero-sum games are also called strictly competitive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum
Many people will just drive faster, more frequently and/or further which will offset some of the savings (see rebound effect at link below). Now you should also ask yourself what will happen to the money saved by those that don’t drive faster, more frequently and/or further. They are going to spend it on stuff that emits carbon to manufacture.
The only way fuel efficiency can help to reduce carbon emissions is to tax away the savings and spend it on something that in itself emits very little carbon to manufacture (nothing made from coal) or will contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions (renewable energy). And, guess what folks. That isn’t going to happen in the United States. If Obama tried to tax those savings he would quickly be thrown from office and anyone running for office that supported such a tax would NEVER get elected.
To learn more about the rebound effect go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
Ronnie Wright
www.worldchangecafe.com
After decades of denier funding through a web of conservative think tanks,
www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
Exxon undermined their rear-end supporters in 2009 by investing $600M on carbon-neutral, algae-based biofuel.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_con_vehicle_algae.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html
This suggests a) Exxon is slow and greedy but not stupid. They've known for decades that fossil fuels DO warm our planet and burning them isn't sustainable indefinitely. b) So, they've sought to retain dominance, even as petroleum production diminishes, due to climate concerns and peak oil (Note: peaking oil is my inference. Exxon's web site doesn't mention it). c) They think algal oil may be their ticket, as it's 10x more efficient and thus way cheaper to produce than by other means.
Direct quotes from Exxon's biofuel web site:
"Growing algae consume carbon dioxide; this PROVIDES GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION BENEFITS."
"Since 2004 we have invested more than $1.5 billion in activities that REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS and improve energy efficiency, and we will spend at least $500 million on additional initiatives over the next few years."
If reducing GHGs isn't for fighting global warming, then what's it for?