Climate Fact of the Day: The last 12 months in the US are the hottest 12 months in the historical record (since 1880).
Post No. 4 in what is now a 13 part series on climate change is about a conversation I had last weekend with climatologist Dr. Michael Mann about human influenced climate change and what it means to our future and the future of our children.
Previous and upcoming posts are listed below for reference. Past post titles will link to back to the original post.
- : How I became interested in the climate issue
- What do these mean, and what’s the diff?
- : 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
- Yep, We Did It: Science tells us that 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
Conversation with Dr. Michael Mann
While I’m sorry to get off schedule from the posted topic list for this blog, I thought that hearing about what one of the leading climatologists in the world has to say about what is going on with the climate might be worth a slight schedule change.
Dr. Mann and I talked about many topics, including his observations of the financially, politically and ideologically motivated attempts to create doubt about one of the most , however, due to space limitations, this post will focus mostly on our talk about the science of human influenced climate change and what we should do about it.
For those readers interested in learning more about the McCarthy type attacks against science and scientists and the successful attempts to mislead the public about climate change, I urge you to read Mann's book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” and Science Historian Naomi Orestes book “Merchants of Doubt”. Both books are alarming, but important, reads about climate change and how our dysfunctional political system is threatening our children’s future.
Before we get into the climate science though, just a little about Dr. Mann.
The first thing I noticed about Dr. Mann is that he is a really nice guy. He’s easy to talk to, open and quite witty. Despite the seriousness of the topic, we had quite a few laughs during the conversation – particularly at the expense of a few of our favorite science ignorant politicians (you probably know who they are!).
Dr. Mann and I also have something in common in that we are both Dads. He has a young daughter and great hopes that she will be able to enjoy something close to the same climate that all of us had while we grew up. Like most Dad’s in the world, what he seems to want more than anything is for his child, and all the children of the world, to have a decent shot at living a good life – like we had.
As parents, we all want to leave the world a better place for our children than the world we had. Climate change has the possibility of denying us this parental duty so it is up to us parents to get off the carbon highway and move down a road that secures the future for our children. Just like saving for college we need to start early because time has a way of creeping up on us. Kids grow up so quickly and climate change is happening just as quickly
This leads us to our talk about climate science and the “new” climate that we are leaving to our children to deal with.
I asked Dr. Mann to respond with “agree or disagree” to a series of statements about climate change and to provide a short response to each. His responses were quite detailed so I can’t quote them verbatim, however, I’ll do my best to compress his responses as accurately as possible to fit into a blog format.
Agree/Disagree Statements
CO2 emissions from Ford Model T’s that were driven a hundred years ago, and every car driven since then, is still in the atmosphere. Agree or Disagree?
Dr. Mann agrees.
He thinks it is highly likely that some of the C02 from the original Model T’s remains in the atmosphere today. Recent studies have shown that C02 can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years.
The 2007 IPCC report put it this way: “About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years."
We are currently experiencing temperatures, and climatic events (weather) of CO2 levels emitted from when I was in high school in the late 70’s. Agree or disagree?
Dr. Mann agrees.
He points out that there is a 30 to 40 year lag between CO2 levels and temperatures. This is known as “climate inertia” or “committed warming”. Dr. Mann compares it to a freight train: Once it is moving, it takes a long time to stop. So far global temperatures have warmed 1.5F. Another .75F on top of the 1.5F is guaranteed – even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow. That’s how much momentum our freight train has already built up.
Temperatures, and related climate events like heat waves, droughts, storms and floods, are going to increase at an increasing rate for the foreseeable future (baring exceptional volcanic activity of significant changes CO2 emissions). Agree or disagree?
Dr. Mann agrees.
This also has to do with the climate inertia that was discussed. The train is slow to start, but once it gets going the faster it can speed up.
Dr. Mann and I talked about a number of different ways how to describe the higher rates of heat and weather related events. Here are some of my favorites:
“Loading the Dice” - meaning a higher likelihood of rolling 5’s and 6’s. Some scientists have suggested that we are also adding new numbers to the dice, so instead of a 6 sided die, it might be 8 sided with the 7’s and 8’s representing new levels of extreme weather.
“Ballplayer on Steroids”: Remember Barry Bonds and other ball players suspected to have used steroids? The weather in a warmer world is like a ball player on steroids – more “home runs”.
Here is a quote I found from Dr. Gerald Meehl of UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research):
"Just as steroids make the baseball player stronger and increase his chances of hitting home runs, greenhouse gases are the steroids of the climate system, they increase the chances of record breaking heat to occur compared to record breaking cold."
A Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences from Washington University recently gave us advice to reconsider our plans to retire in Arizona. Agree or disagree with the Professor?
Dr. Mann agrees.
Living in Arizona is already difficult and it is probably going to get worse as temperatures continue to increase. The higher temperatures and increasing droughts will be exacerbated by lower water supplies coming from the lower snowfall levels in the mountains.
Recommended reading: Regional Climate Change Impacts - Southwest
A criticism of the IPCC reports is that they are very conservative and may understate the possibility of much greater warming. Agree or disagree?
Dr. Mann agrees.
Science is inherently conservative to start with. Each IPCC statement requires hundreds of scientists to agree. In addition it has to pass through multiple layers of oversight. Therefore, the IPCC claims that ultimately get published tend to be more conservative than what many scientists really think.
At the end of our conversation I asked Dr. Mann how our group can help in the effort to limit additional harm to the climate. He responded with 3 suggestions:
- Communicate: Share your views and concerns by writing letters to your local newspapers, politicians and community leaders. Additionally, let your network of family, friends, coworkers and social networks know about your concerns
- Fight Climate Change Misinformation: Challenge misinformation by responding to misleading blogs, newspaper editorials and “radio commentators” with the facts and scientificly supported evidence
- Take Personal Action: While it will take systemic action to ultimately reduce the impact of the climate problem, taking personal action to limit your CO2 impact will help mitigate the damage and it will save you money as well. Professor Scott Mandia has some great suggestions to reduce personal CO2 emissions while saving money in his
The next post will return to the originally planned schedule. We will consider some of the most common “arguments” that are used by those who spread misinformation about what is likely to be mankind’s greatest challenge.
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 and accredited scientific organizations.
Again, I do not see any need to retract or apologize for anything. However, there are several hundred comments at this point so if I missed something, please bring it to my attention.
While media coverage has been improving, especially with the record heat wave and droughts this year, coverage has decreased considerably over the last 5 years or so (with the exception of a couple spikes) See below for a graph and story regarding media coverage. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/
As I have written several times, human influenced climate change is accepted by every scientific organization in the world that has anything to with the atmosphere accepts the IPCC position, as does the world's National Academies of Science. In addtion to the scientific consensus, the position is also accepted by all of the branches of the US military, all of the largest oil/energy companies as well as most of the largest companies in the world (see previous point about "the debate that isnt'). There are NO accredited scientific organizations that dissent from the IPCC position. and you are claiming that I am making an “ideological viewpoint presented as fact.”? That frankly, is an absurd position to take, however, I'm not surprised that you have resorted to making absurd claims at this point.
Don't give yourself too much credit here Jeff, or me either. I'm glad that you are following along with the series, but unless you are a practicing climate scientist, neither you are I are qualified to "debate" what is one of the most studied and univerally accepted scientific topics in this history of science.
Well, you are arguing against yourself here (see your comment about tree ring data above), but irregardless, I'll be addressing this point in post #7 "Yep, we did it".
There is money on both sides of everything. However, on the "denialist", or contrarian side, we have the most profitable companies (oil companies) in the history of humankind. These companies are at grave risk, as they should be, when the public makes the connection between CO2 and the changing climate. This is very similiar tactic that the tobacco companies took in the 70's and 80's - denying the link between smoking and cancer - as documented in the book "Merchants of Doubt". Manufacturing "doubt" is a highly effective tactic to confuse the public and continue to bring in record profits while causing grave harm to societal well-being.
Does Dr. Mann find it "quite odd and mystifying" that the study concluded there is a cooling trend over the past 2000 years that is stronger than previously reported, and in fact shows a decline in average temperature? Does Dr. Mann find it "quite odd and mystifying" that the author of the study said, "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," and "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods."? Does Dr. Mann find it "quite odd and mystifying" that the author concluded, "Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia." or that the trend is 0.3C COOLING, not the 1C warming as previously indicated?
Dr. Mann also says, "Yet the article extrapolates quite a bit, in terms of its conclusions regarding proxy-based temperature reconstructions more generally." Dr. Mann then says, "The authors make much of the importance of long-term radiative forcing due to the changes in the earth’s orbit for millennial timescale temperature trends." So...Dr. Mann uses this article to politely say these scientists made assumptions that reached conclusions that don't match his...therefore his assumptions must be more valid. Is that how you interpret it? Or...did you press him on the topic? And then...he actually linked to an analysis completed by Jocelyn Fong, or EXTREME left wing Media Matters, a site funded by George Soros. Jocelyn Fong, who according to her own biography on Media Matters has a degree in "Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies". Seriously?
1. Global warming is real, and man caused it. There is no other viewpoint. 2. Arguments that do not support 1 are invalid. My statement is clear to most. You have fully embraced the tactics of Prof. Lakoff. Even though there absolutely is an existing debate, HENCE THE REASON FOR YOUR POSTINGS, you refuse to acknowledge the possibility AGW conclusions are not accurate. You didn't even acknowledge the tactics themself!!
In your 3rd article, on a posting dated 2:51pm, Friday, June 22, 2012, you said, AND I QUOTE: "It's a blatent lie, actually two lies, which, frankly, I am considering flagging as inappopriate. I'll hold off for now pending your retraction. If you continue to misquote me, or anyone else commenting here , or misrepresent my claims, I'll ask that you be barred from posting going forward." In these two lines, you accused me of lying, misquoting, and/or misrepresenting posters, and threatened to ban me. I proved, using your own words, that I did not lie, and challenged you to prove any wrong doing. You did not. You demanded a retraction from me for your incorrect accusation of lying. And you do not see any need to apologize? You do hold well to the tactics of "The Little Blue Book". Prof. Lakoff and Saul Alinsky would be proud.
So, are you admitting that your statement regarding media coverage was not true? You wrote the article less than two months ago, yet now say the media coverage has been improving. Maybe you were using sensationalism? Drawing the readers in with skewed perceptions? Kind of like Al Gore's movie, huh? Your article, while interesting, is not relevant. Your article implied you were not getting the message that the globe is warming...that would require zero articles, or proof of a differing viewpoint, which is not measured by Colorado U. So, I'm concluding...and maybe other readers of this thread too...that you were not seeing a level of hysteria you feel is warranted. However, you have zero evidence that any mainstream outlet is providing the alternate viewpoint. In fact, if it weren't for "talking heads" on conservative radio and the internet, this would very much be a one-way conversation.
Do you really believe one must be a practicing climate scientist to be capable of reading and understanding the information? Am I qualified to sit on a climate panel? Eh...no. Am I able to click on links and read? Yep! Can I apply critical thinking skills to evaluate the words I read? Yep!
So, your answer is, "No", you cannot quantify your claims that more money is being spent on one viewpoint over the other. It's OK to say that. Be honest with your readers...they will find it endearing. Though...Prof. Lakoff, Dr. Mann, and Saul Alinsky will not...
it appears we have moved way off topic here and I"m moving on. I'll be finishing up the next post in the next day or two and I'll be happy to respond to your topics related to that post in the new thread. Repost of my "Authors 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."
To conclude from this study that all historical T reconstructions, even those that do not use tree rings, are somehow in error is to conclude that a study of one type of Ford auto that *may* be unsafe means that all cars from all makers are unsafe and always have been. There has been a MEASURED increase in global T of 1C so your interpretation of what the authors have stated is false. That warming matches the pattern expected from increasing heat-trapping CO2. BTW, if the roman and medieval periods were warmer than today it means that our future warming will be MUCH LARGER than models anticipate because it would mean that the climate is much more sensitive to radiative forcing. Be careful what you hang your hat on!
As for your conclusion regarding the roman and medieval periods...As I must assume you ARE a practicing climate scientist (you have not confirmed this Scott A Mandia is the same as the Suffolk Co Comm College professor), I value your opinion on this aspect. From my limited understanding, the theory being presented by Prof. Dr. Jan Esper relates to inaccuracies in existing models. In fact, Dr. Esper states, "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.” So...my non-practicing climate scientist conclusion is...what if the models are not correct? How did the temperature get that high in the roman period, and what conclusive evidence do we have now that indicates this warming period is different? Why does Dr. Esper believe these findings are significant?
You are making the false assumption that climate models may be wrong on the high side. If previous times were warmer than today it means that climate models are more likely too conservative in their future projections (wrong on the low side). BTW, the climate change over the past 30 years is essentially 100% due to increased CO2 and other heat-trapping gases. Natural forces should have us cooling and increased pollution has been dimming the sun which has masked some of the warming that CO2 is causing. We have been "lucky" lately. If China and other developing countries' citizens demand clean air and water, we will be in even bigger trouble.
I believe you may have interpreted my postings incorrectly. I did not conclude the models incorrect high or low...or even incorrect. I am simply asking, what IF the models are incorrect? They are...well...models. And it seems to me as though some (not necessarily Larry Lazar) are using existing models (which MAY be incorrect) as the basis to declare global warming is caused primarily to man increasing CO2 as undeniable fact. In fact...some may have even stated in this comment thread that there is NO DEBATE. And I do agree with you that CO2 is greenhouse gas. Where I'm still looking for answers is...if the roman and medieval periods now reflect potentially higher temps than previous models estimated...and in fact the temps may now be at or above the current temps...HOW did the temp increase back then? Was that also due to man-made CO2? Why wouldn't the same factors that caused climate warming then be in play today?
We also know what is coming based on HISTORICAL records that show us large climate changes occurred when there were increases like we see now. In fact, the increases occurring now are happening faster than any time in the past several million years and past rates like that today have caused mass extinctions. The largest uncertainty in model projections are due to uncertainties about how much more CO2 we will dump into the air and not due to a misunderstanding of the physics underlying the models. You are looking for a ghost. It would really help if you looked at ALL the evidence instead of trying to find a few holes. This is the last comment from me because everything I have said has been said many times before by many others. It is all there if you look with an objective eye.
http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/blog_posts/global-warmingclimate-change-post-5-of-13-the-arguments
27,000 now w/p power- thus far here in the town I am in- some rain, lightening thunder and rain- not bad here- Temperatures dropped from over 100 degrees - now down to 80.
Contemporary American society as it is today remains in a consumption thrilled inertia- of total disconnection from realty.. Most have no idea what a hellish future that awaits them. The Scientists need to do more. The Media needs to be more truthful. Dr. Mann has done a great job- so has Dr. Cullen, and Dr. Hansen- and others- but we all know we are very close to being at the point of NO return. 'Theoretically' there is still time left- practically- probably not.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/esper-millennial-cooling-in-context.html