Global Warming/Climate Change Post 7 of 13: “We Did It”
Climate Fact of the Week: July’s average temperature was the hottest on record for the contiguous United States, according to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. The last 12 months have been the hottest ever for the United States, with more than 27,000 high temperature records broken or tied so far this year.
Climate Quote of the Week: “This is worse than 2008—we’re in kind of a perfect storm scenario,” said Ana Puchi-Donnelly, senior agricultural commodities trader at London-based Marex Spectron. “We won’t really know until the whole crop is harvested. We’re talking about the worst drought in the last 50 to 70 years in one of the hottest years on record." Source: NBC News “Economy Watch”
Post No. 7 of this 13 part series on climate change will discuss how we know that we (humans) are changing the climate.
Previous and upcoming posts are listed below for reference. Past post titles will link to back to the original post.
- Why I Write: How I became interested in the climate issue
- “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”? What do these mean, and what’s the diff?
- A Brief Guide to the Climate Debate: The debate that isn’t
- Conversation with Dr. Michael Mann: Summary of my talk with renowned climatologist Dr. Michael Mann
- The Arguments: The most common arguments and responses
- On Our Watch: Science tells us that climate change is happening now
- “We Did It”: This climate change is from OUR activities
- What It Means to Missouri: How climate change will likely impact our region
- Save Money, Save the Climate!: Simple ideas that save money while reducing CO2 emissions
- Our Choice: What we can do to limit further harm while adapting to the changes to come
- Lead! Climate Change is happening. The United States can lead, or get left behind
- If We Don’t? Geo-engineering the climate. What is it and why we don’t want to go there
- Final Thoughts: Ethical considerations
“We Did It”
Suppose you are driving north up Highway 109 and you come across a car that has gone off the road and crashed into a tree. There aren’t any police cars there yet so you, being the good citizen that you are, pull to the side of the road, call 911 to report the incident, and walk over to the car—cell phone still in hand.
As you approach the car, you notice the driver slumped forward against the covered steering wheel—you also notice the deflated airbag. As you look around the interior of the car you breathe a sigh of relief as you confirm there are not any other passengers in the vehicle. The driver, a nice looking young man, is not bleeding and you don’t notice any injuries, but he is also not responsive to your attempts to get his attention. Apparently, he passed out when the car struck the tree and remains unconscious.
You check around the car again, this time a little closer, and then that you notice something on the floor behind the driver. Beer cans. A lot of beer cans. Then you notice the unmistakable smell of beer coming from the vehicle.
The police and ambulance arrive and take over. After the police ask you a few questions, you are back in your car continuing your trip home.
It is a couple days later when you learn the driver, an 18-year-old man, was unhurt. While you are happy that he was OK, you shake your head when you read that he was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Apparently his blood alcohol level was 1.5 times the legal limit of .040 and pictures of him drinking at a nearby party were showing up on his Facebook wall. You think about what might have happened if the car had hit another vehicle head-on instead of just going off the road—a road that your teenage children and their friends frequently drive on their way to and from school.
How did the police know accident was the result of an intoxicated driver instead of some other factor? It doesn’t take a super smart detective to know that the evidence was overwhelming. Empty beer cans, photographic evidence and most importantly, the blood alcohol level of the driver.
It is the same type of overwhelming and undeniable evidence that tells us that man’s activities are causing the earth to warm and the climate to change.
Instead of measuring the level of alcohol in the blood stream, scientists measure the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The current level of carbon in the atmosphere is 1.5 times higher than carbon levels over the history of man’s existence on earth.
That is the equivalent of being 1.5 times over the legal limit of alcohol.
We know that atmospheric carbon warms the earth – just like we know that alcohol causes intoxication. Both are testable, verifiable and proven.
And it’s not just the CO2 levels that implicate human activity as the cause of the current climate change. There are many other lines of evidence as well.
Think about these three facts for a minute.
- The carbon from every car, every factory, every coal plant that ever existed - is still in our atmosphere.
- Carbon causes the earth to warm
- The earth is warming - and has been for decades
The evidence that man is causing the current warming is so compelling that the US’s National Academy of Science, which is the “highest court in the land” on matters of science, issued the following statement in 2010:
‘The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems," the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on "fundamental, use-inspired" research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change.”
Saying that it’s “natural” is like saying the car crashing into the tree was natural. Sure the driver could have fallen asleep, which would be a “natural explanation”, and perhaps he did fall asleep. But we know, from evidence, that the accident was the result of a driver that was drunk– whether he was sleepy or not does not matter. He was drunk.
There are many myths being promoted about the cause of the current climate change. “It’s the sun”, “it’s not man”, “Co2 follows warming”, “it’s cooling”, are a few. Accepting these myths as true would be just like us ignoring the beer cans, the pictures of drinking activity and the driver's blood alcohol level in determining the cause of the car crash.
Frankly, it would be ignoring reality—and it would be criminal.
In the case of human caused climate change, WE ARE THE DRUNK DRIVERS– and we are not alone in our car.
We all have a choice:
We can have another drink and keep heading down the road, or ...
We can pull-over, take a walk and get some nice, clean, fresh air.
Before we decide, perhaps we might want to turn around and take a look at who is in the car with us.
Things we can do:
- Educate ourselves (recommended sources: NASA Climate, Climate Change Communication)
- Hold our politicians and govt officials accountable for adapting to and mitigating against climate change
- Work to get the corruptive influence of money out of our political system
The bad news: It's us. The good news: We can stop it.
Note: The next post “What Climate Change means to Missouri” discusses the implications of climate change on residents of Missouri and the lower Midwest.
Author's note to commenters:
This is sure to be a controversial topic and I’m OK with that. I only ask that you keep your comments civil, respectful, informed and related to the particular subject matter discussed. As you can see from the topic list at the beginning of this post, there are plenty to topics to be talked about over the summer.
I also ask that if you dispute a claim, that you provide a link to a reputable source supporting your claim.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate scientist, nor do I claim to have scientific expertise in this subject. Scientific claims made in these posts will be sourced only from highly respected scientific organizations.
Liane
1:12 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
For futher information, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Scott A Mandia
1:26 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Liane,
Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php where most of the false arguments made in the doc you linked to are exposed.
The SPPI is a think tank that is NOT run by real science experts, but instead, those individuals who do not wish to have any type of government regulation. Many of these people also have close ties to the fossil fuel industry.
You have a choice: you can listen to non-experts like the ones you linked to who will cause you to delay action or you can listen to almost every climate scientist, health official, insurer, and military expert who tells you that humans are causing global warming and we need to reduce our carbon footprint.
Action now means YOU will have a say in policy. WAIT and things get really bad and BIG GOVERNMENT will make policy. Why not accept the science and engage on solutions so your ideas are not left behind?
Larry Lazar
1:21 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Thank you for that link, Liane, but "science and public policy.org" has a documented history of falsely reporting what has been well estasblished science for decades now. Simply put, they are a propaganda site that is funded by oil companies and free market "think tanks"
If you have a study from source that is actually an accredited scientific organization I would appreciate you sharing that source.
Liane
3:06 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html
Liane
3:09 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html
Liane
3:24 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Regarding "skeptical science". It is a blog.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disinformation.html
Perhaps, this meets your requirements as an "actual" scientific website - http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N47/EDIT.php
Larry Lazar
3:32 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Liane, Skeptical Science is a website that supports the scientific consensus of every accredited earth sciences organization in the world.
It is also "on the side of" every National Academy of Science as well as NASA, the American Geophysical Union, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Additionally, Skeptical Science is on the side of over 97 percent of practicing climatologists.
There are also many interested organizations outside of science that agree with the consensus of climate/atmosphere science organizations and the 97 percent of climate scientists. Here are a few that you may have heard of:
•The Pentagon, US Army, US Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard
•All the Major Oil/Energy Companies, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP
•All the Major Global Insurance Companies
•All the Major Automobile Manufacturers, including GM, Ford, Honda and Fiat/Chrysler
•The Christian, Jewish, Islamic and religious institutions, including the US Catholic Church
•70 of the largest companies in the world, including Coca Cola, Microsoft and Wal-Mart
Okay, that’s one side of the argument, who’s on the other?
There are no scientific organizations that hold dissenting views
the "Astrophysicist" from the story you posted is not a scientific organization.
Sundance
6:56 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Larry what is the source of your 97% claim? Since you ask commenters to provide direct support for their comments it is only fair that you do the same. Can you provide direct documentation for the 97% claim you make above? Your direct evidence should include all Russian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. scientists. FYI I am already aware of and have read the entire Doran study and it doesn't include foreign scientists. I look forward to reading and analyzing your response.
Scott A Mandia
4:32 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Liane,
We could both throw links at each other all day but we both know that will not change our minds in the least. Right? I wish to engage you on this topic and I promise I will not flame you nor insult your intelligence. I am very curious why you hold the position that you do with regard to global warming.
Humor me. In your opinion what is the percentage chance that humans are causing global warming and that warming will end up hurting society in ways such as extreme weather damages, food shortages, civil wars, damage due to sea level rise, damage due to ocean acidification, and increased taxes/costs to fix these damages?
Give me a number: 0%, 5%, 10%? What number would you assign?
I will not do a “gotcha” because honestly, I do not know the actual number either.
Liane
4:39 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Again, far from settled science. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070522_isdo.pdf
To suggest so is disingenious.
I also noticed the above post by Scott Mandia. Possibly, the same Scott Mandia from Skeptical Science (a disclaimer would have been nice). http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1538
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/
Funded by fiscal sponsorship of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was founded.
Left wing, much? You see, I am as doubtful of your sources as you are of mine and, so, the debate continues. BTW, it is August 13th and 75 degrees:) Pretty cool for August. Oh, I know, that is part of global warming also;)
Liane
4:54 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
"•The Pentagon, US Army, US Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard
•All the Major Oil/Energy Companies, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP
•All the Major Global Insurance Companies
•All the Major Automobile Manufacturers, including GM, Ford, Honda and Fiat/Chrysler
•The Christian, Jewish, Islamic and religious institutions, including the US Catholic Church
•70 of the largest companies in the world, including Coca Cola, Microsoft and Wal-Mart"
There is a lot of "green" dollars to be distributed and I am sure most of these organizations would be more than happy to participate. I can't speak for religions other than my own, but I know they are scared to death of losing their 501(c)3 status.
Larry Lazar
5:57 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Liane,
Pick a topic and I can find dozens, or even hundreds of articles to support both sides of an issue.
Believe in a "flat earth"? I can dozens of topics to support that claim.
Big Foot? Zombies? Tooth fairies? UFO's?
Again, all of these can be supported with stories and websites with all kinds of "facts"
Not all information is created equal. Some of it is correct. Some of it is incorrect. Some of it is carefully balanced. Some of it is heavily biased. Some of it is just plain crazy.
It is vital in the midst of this deluge that each of us be able to sort through all of this, keeping the useful information and discarding the rest. This requires the skill of critical thinking.
Sources matter. Quality sources. Critical thinking matters.
NASA is a pretty darn good source don't you think? How about National Geographic? How about Discover Magazine. How about Field and Stream?
How about we actually see what practicing climate scientists have to say at "realclimate.org"
Meanwhile, it's sure a pretty darn hot and dry summer don't you think?
Liane
5:36 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Scott,
What do you do, personally, to combat global warming?
I oppose government-mandated programs re: global warming. There is too much money involved and too much misuse of the money.
Let's take, for example, electric cars. Each sale of a Chevy Volt carries an incentive of $7,500.00. Inherent problems with electric cars - they catch on fire, there have been associated electrocutions and issues with the disposal of lithium batteries. Plus, where do purchasers of electric cars imagine their electricity originates? For the most part - coal.
I believe when the free market works and electric cars become affordable, efficient and effective - people will buy them en masse. Until that time, the government forcing them on us, isn't the solution.
By way of background - I drive an 10 year old automobile, I hang my laundry out to dry, I have always had a garden and we have a small solar energy system to generate electricity. Why? Not because it is mandated by the government, but because it makes good sense for our family and that is the way my grandparents lived (well, aside from the solar).
I am weary of individuals carrying on about the environment and living in 5,000 sq. ft. homes, driving a different car every year, etc., etc., It is always about "other" people sacrificing.
Until man can control volcanoes, lightning generated forest fires, sunspots, and the rotation of the earth, we will have varying temperatures.
Scott A Mandia
6:25 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
I spend countless hours communicating the science to the general public, journalists, and elected officials. I get paid for teaching but I get $0 for all of these extra hours. My motivation is that, as a father of two small boys, I fear that the choices we made yesterday and are making today are depriving my children of a better future. My generation might be the first that leaves a worse world than we had.
My car is a LEV (three cats) and is 9 years old and my wife’s car is 11 years old and gets 27 mpg. (My next car will be an EV and my wife will get a hybrid for the better range. I have a Patch blog post about some of the thing we have done to become more energy efficient. See: http://bit.ly/LgmUfj
Unfortunately, energy efficiency cannot solve the problem but it is an excellent first step.
You are correct about coal-produced electric cars but only in states that get most of their energy from coal. See this graphic (http://bit.ly/O3wqAG) which shows that EVs are better or at least as good as the best hybrids in 83% of the US.
Would you please answer my question about percentage? You strike me as a risk management kind of person so I assume you have factored in some level or climate risk into your equation.
Liane
6:36 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Larry,
We could do this all day -
- http://thehayride.com/2010/03/nasa-climate-data-inferior-to-discredited-east-anglia-cru/
Perhaps you, sir, should engage in some critical thinking.
Liane
6:43 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
Scott,
To answer your question, I would have to admit I believe in global (whatever). I don't. Therefore, no risk percentages. Sorry. We have a different worldview.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0993d.asp
Scott A Mandia
7:01 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
The last paragraph in your link states: "The extraordinary and unprecedented improvement in our quality of life during the past 200 years can be attributed to individual freedom, technology, industry, and economic growth. Let us not sacrifice the system that has given us longer life and better health to unwarranted fear of the very processes of that system."
I agree with the first sentence 100%. How do we have a different world view?
How about a slight edit of the second sentence: "Let us not sacrifice FUTURE freedoms, technology, industry, and economic growth that will give us a longer life and better health to unwarranted fear of the very process of that system."
Do you really think that basing our economy on a finite source of energy that is mostly controlled by other countries (many of which hate us) is a wise path? China certainly does not think so. They are #1 in solar manufacturing because they realize that energy source is infinite and is the future and they want to be first to capture the market. Wouldn’t you rather be selling solar to China than buying it from them?
Aren’t you tired of our children being sent to the Middle East to defend our oil addiction? Aren’t you tired of seeing imported fossil fuels being 50% of our international trade deficit? Aren't you tired of seeing ExxonMobil profiting $2-3 billion per month off our addiction?
They have hooked us and do not want us to wise up so they lie and lie and lie. Do not fall for it.
Scott A Mandia
7:07 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
BTW, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were in a group called Global Climate Coalition and their own scientists agreed in 1995 that:
"“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,”
They buried that report and began the lies. See: http://nyti.ms/Pf6ebS
I honestly cannot see how any American can read this article and not get angry. Billionaires lying to the American public about the threat to our future in order for them to squeeze a few more bucks today.
Liane
7:48 pm on Monday, August 13, 2012
ExxonMobile wants to be part of the mandate process, they will say whatever is necessary in order to have a voice in the process.
Many individuals pensions and 401(k)'s are partially invested in oil - 31.2% of Pensions; 17.7% of IRA's; 20.6% of Mutual Funds and 21.1% of Individual Investors. - "Who Owns America's Oil and Natural Gas Companies" by Shapiro and Pham
China is #1 in solar manufacturing because they manipulate the market. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/global/us-solar-manufacturers-to-ask-for-duties-on-imports.html?pagewanted=all
As far as the oil billionaires, you better look at the politicians because according to FactCheck.org (left leaning) the government is making as much as the oil companies depending on the state in which you live. BTW, I have no problem with private sector billionaires - they produce things and hire people.http://factcheck.org/2008/04/gasoline-tax-profits/
Scott A Mandia
6:58 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Liane,
Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful and intellectual. I think far too often each side refuses to listen to the other and a shouting match erupts.
I am not sure why you think there is 0% chance of human-caused global warming and negative impacts when every single international science academy including our own National Academy of Science tells us we are radically altering “normal” climate. We all buy fire insurance even though there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of our house burning down. We are not buying any insurance for climate change even as we watch sea levels rise, droughts, fires, and floods increasing, health declining, and our oceans slowly dying.
It appears that you do not trust the government to do the right thing by you and I cannot blame you. Washington has been corrupted on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, we need to use the government we have in order to protect us from the impacts of human caused climate change. Throughout history there have been many examples of where free markets have ended up hurting people and the government had to step in to protect us. My wife, a history professor, wrote a blog post titled A Side of Rat Feces? (A History Lesson) about several of these cases. See http://bit.ly/QxAASe We have safe food, work environments, and clean water due to regulation.
(cont)
Scott A Mandia
6:59 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Humans caused the ozone hole and we fixed that with laws. Humans caused acid rain and we fixed that with a sulfur cap and trade market. Now we need to fix climate change. We have choices now but with time those choices get fewer, more expensive, and involve much greater governmental oversight.
Liane
7:38 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Scott,
I could give you many instances wherein the USDA, FDA, OSHA and the EPA have abused and/or misdirected their authority and caused harm to the individuals involved. That is for another discussion.
We have not had a free market system in the United States since the 1930's, but that, also, is for another discussion.
According to the EPA's website we still have acid rain - so apparently humans didn't "fix" the problem. http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/intro.html
Here is a point where we agree, the more authoritative power the "green" movement gets via the U.N., Agenda 21, E.P.A., etc., the less choices we will have.
We will have to agree to disagree on most topics. Thank you for your time.
Liane
7:59 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
More taxpayer $$$$ go up in flames - http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/fisker-karma-idINL2E8JD61H20120813
From ABC - "Fisker, the start-up electric car company that received part of a $529 million federal government loan guarantee from the Obama Administration."
steve reed
11:07 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
This is the way I understand things. Liane has given her answer, such as it is, to Scott's percentage question. She states she does not believe in global warming, and, unless there is some evidence that Liane would recognize as meeting some threshold for ""settling" the science, we have to recognize that effectively he/she has answered Scott's percentage question with the answer "0", which implicitly rejects a scientific worldview with all its uncertainties. That is why Liane "has a different worldview". Of course, we AGW believers should also be willing to state what evidence would lead us to have less confidence in, or reject, AGW. For me, my confidence would be lower as the percentage of climatologists who reject AGW climbs higher, and/or I became convinced that credible anti-AGW arguments were not being answered, and/or I had less confidence in the climatology community espousing AGW. Or if global climate trends in the next several years (say 20) run counter to predicted trends.
The impacts should AGW be true, and what actions if any by whom should be done in response, are irrelevant to an individual in determining the confidence level one should give to the hypothesis of AGW, although the confidence level one has has a bearing on what actions are thought suitable. In short, welcome or unwelcome results of our conclusions ain't relevant to reaching our conclusion.
Collin Reischman
12:10 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Just out of curiosity:
Even if the doubters are right and Global Warming is a complete myth somehow fabricated by thousands of scientists working in concert across the globe, does that somehow negate the positive results we might receive from adopting more climate-friendly policies? I mean, even if it's all a lie, is a world with less carbon emissions and more green, renewable technology really a bad thing?
"What if this is all a scam and we make a better world for nothing?" Seems like a flimsy argument.
Liane
2:16 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Collin,
The difference lies in the idea that I would NEVER force you to fund Anti-Global Warming organizations and programs.
Free markets should and would, if allowed, dictate that individuals who support Global Warming theories would use THEIR own money (or investors' money) to fund research and development projects, as well as, actual solutions. If there are as many people who believe in Global Warming as we are led to believe, no problem finding the $$$.
However, this is not what we have. We have NGO's and governments taking money from ALL taxpayers and giving it to organizations who have their hands out for government subsidies, FORCING the market, before it is ready. Hence, the number of bankruptcies and failures.
If global warming advocates would spend more time and effort creating solutions, raising capital and starting "green" companies and less time attempting to convince everyone that the answer lies somewhere within a behemoth government program and a massive re-distribution of wealth (BTW, how are you going to get India, China, Russia, etc. on board - Kyoto Treaty?), it would be a more productive use of time.
With this gentlemen, I must end our dialogue. It has been lots of fun and, BTW, I am a she.