EDITOR'S COMMENT:
On February 5th, I alerted all of you to a very important CBC radio report on climate change called "Climate Wars". After I told you about it, I posted it on most of the social networks I manage, including Integral NHNE. While the report was largely met with silence elsewhere, an energetic conversation unfolded on Integral NHNE.
Some members of Integral NHNE posted information that suggested that climate change may not be as serious as the news media and a growing number of scientists are suggesting. Other members, including retired USGS / NASA scientist Jim Torson, spent time debunking common misunderstandings and systematically explaining why a growing number of scientists are extremely concerned. If you (or any of your family, friends or acquaintances) have been confused about how serious climate change is -- or, alternately, you're sure it's serious but aren't sure how to convey the seriousness of the situation to others -- this is the report to read.
It begins with an introduction to the CBC interview I sent out last week. If you haven't listened to this report, I urge you to do so. Yes, it's scary, but unless we understand the enormity (and seriousness) of the forces gathering steam right now, I don't think we will have the capacity to effectively deal with them.
Next come two posts that Jim put together for Integral NHNE. I have included them below in their entirety, including references to comments that were made on Integral NHNE. To read the complete exchange, go here:
http://integralnhne.ning.com/forum/topics/climate-warsJim has been a long-time supporter of NHNE and, behind-the-scenes, has spoon fed me a constant stream of authoritative information pertaining to climate change (and other topics). You can find out more about Jim by reading this 2002 special report:
A VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) CENTER OF ASTROGEOLOGY Friday, June 21, 2002
Buckle your seat belts, especially if you thought climate change was nothing to worry about.
--- David Sunfellow
------------
CLIMATE WARS
Here's an outstanding 3-part, 3-hour CBC Radio series that describes the complicated and extremely dangerous dynamics of climate change. It is one of the best, most current and comprehensive reports on climate change I have come across. Along with including interviews with experts from all over the world, this report pulls no punches: we, as a species, along with most of the planet's plants, animals, and eco-systems, are in serious trouble. If you aren't concerned about climate change -- or are, but are unsure how the many different forces that are being unleashed by climate change interact with one another, this is the report to listen to. It deftly explains how big the problem is, how colossal the forces are that have been turned loose (or are about to be turned loose), how feedback loops, of enormous depth, breadth, and power, could (if they aren't prevented) push everything out of control, and what kind of solutions are currently being pondered. Bottom line: we have the technology to turn the tide, but do we have the social maturity and political will? Can humankind, in other words, do something we have never been able to do before: bring together all the divergent voices on the planet to deal with a potentially catastrophic problem in record breaking time?
Since this is a subject that will likely affect all of us in dramatic ways, I wanted to be sure all of us had the opportunity to listen to some of the best reporting available on this important topic.
--- David Sunfellow
............
CBC CLIMATE WAR PODCASTS
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.htmlGlobal warming is moving much more quickly than scientists thought it would. Even if the biggest current and prospective emitters -- the United States, China and India -- were to slam on the brakes today, the earth would continue to heat up for decades. At best, we may be able to slow things down and deal with the consequences, without social and political breakdown. Gwynne Dyer examines several radical short- and medium-term measures now being considered -- all of them controversial.
Climate Wars - Part One (MP3)
Original Link •
Alternative LinkClimate Wars - Part Two (MP3)
Original Link •
Alternative LinkClimate Wars - Part Three (MP3)
Original One •
Alternative Link--------------
JIM TORSON'S FIRST POST
February 7, 2009
http://integralnhne.ning.com/forum/topics/climate-warsAs with many other subjects, when discussing global warming it is very important to be discerning. There can be merit in considering different viewpoints, but various different viewpoints are not necessarily equally valid.
The Earth's climate is obviously complex and there are clearly some aspects that nobody understands with certainty. However, the basic idea of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) problem can be stated as follows: Global warming is occurring, it is largely caused by human activities, this is a very serious problem, and we should take actions to attempt to solve the problem. Thus, the basic question that requires discernment is this: Is there still any legitimate scientific debate about the correctness of the basic AGW problem as I have just stated it?
The perception that there continues to be a legitimate scientific debate about the basics of AGW is incorrect. This is a result of the success of the disinformation campaign that has been using the same tactics as was used by the tobacco industry in trying to convince people that there was scientific uncertainty about the health hazards of smoking. In fact, the global warming disinformation has involved some of the same people who were involved with the tobacco disinformation, e.g., S. Fred Singer, etc. A good discussion of the history of global warming disinformation is contained in the following 58-minute video of a lecture by Naomi Oreskes:
The American Denial Of Global WarmingThis video begins with a good summary of how the science of AGW has been clearly established by decades of study and debate by the scientific community. If you suspect that the skeptics have been improperly excluded from this scientific debate, I encourage you to read the following:
Climate Science: Sceptical About BiasThe documentary posted by Kulu contains a great deal of nonsense. I first saw this video several months ago when it was being passed around as if it were "new" information. I could post a long comment refuting many aspects of this video, but I won't do that because it would contribute to the idea that there continues to be a legitimate scientific debate about the issue. However, I'll comment on just a couple aspects of it.
Part of the video was John Christy talking about his claim that the satellite measurements do not agree with the computer models. I kept thinking, "What!? Is this an old interview with Christy, or is he just lying?" I knew that Christy's claims had been shown to be incorrect and that he had admitted his error. The following is perhaps much more than you want to read on the subject, but if you are interested, see:
Tropical Tropospheric Trends Again (Again)At the very end of the video it very briefly said Copyright 2004, so this is apparently a four year old video. It's interesting that it was on the screen for just a fraction of a second at the very end of the video. Maybe someone is trying to pass this off as "new" information?
Larry discussed being perplexed about the discussion of sea levels in the video. Briefly, the suggestion that the overall sea level is not rising (or that it is even falling) is total nonsense. Here are just a couple references on this:
Sea Level Change The Rising Sea LevelAnother important aspect of the AGW discussion is the question of how we should determine the truth about what is going on in the physical world so that we can discuss policy actions. Should we use science to try to seek this truth, or should we reject science and use political ideology? Here is a good discussion of ideology:
Why Climate Denialists Are Blind To Facts And Reason: The Role Of IdeologyThe arguments of the skeptics against the reality of the AGW problem tend to largely consist of many of the same arguments over and over again. There are several websites that have good summaries of these along with refutations of them. I won't list these websites here because, as I indicated, concentrating on these technical details reinforces the incorrect notion that there is still a legitimate scientific debate. However, I would be glad to post these later if people would like to see these details after watching the video of the Oreskes lecture.
I thought the Climate Wars program was very well done and very consistent with what I have learned about the AGW problem over a number of years of closely following the discussions. However, there was an important aspect of geoengineering that Dyer failed to make clear. Based on the observed effects of volcanoes, we can be reasonably confidant that putting sulfur high into the atmosphere could help reduce rising temperatures. (There are of course questions about costs, feasibility, and possible undesirable side-effects.) However, one of the effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere is to make the oceans more acidic, which can be very bad for life in the ocean. If we use geoengineering to hold down the temperature but continue to increase the acidity of the oceans, then we will still have a very very big problem.
In the Climate Wars program Dyer indicated that he was pessimistic about whether humanity would be able to find the wisdom to attempt to solve the AGW problem. I have to say that I agree with him. The discussions here are further indications of how easy it is for the disinformation to fool people into incorrectly thinking that there is still a legitimate scientific debate about the problem.
--------------
JIM TORSON'S SECOND POST
February 10, 2009
http://integralnhne.ning.com/forum/topics/climate-warsIn the past I have had these sorts of discussions about global warming with other groups of people, and I have found that they often end up being a total waste of time and effort because many people find reasons to ignore the science. For example, on one email discussion list people would raise objections to AGW from the skeptical side of the "debate" and I would respond by pointing out the scientific evidence that refutes these skeptical arguments. However, a couple years ago it became clear that most of the people on the list simply rejected the science. They are completely convinced that the scientists who are trying to raise concerns about AGW are doing this only to hype the issue so that they can continue to get research funding. In short, they believe that the scientists are lying about global warming for their own personal gain. It became obvious that discussing the issue with these people was a total waste of time. I suspect that my observation of this that I posted on another maillist was part of what prompted one of the scientists there to start a blog entitled "Only In It For The Gold." See this recent post:
What This Blog Is AboutIn my previous post, I raised the question of how people here would seek the truth of physical reality. Will science be used, or will science be rejected and something else such as political ideology be used? I hope you can understand why I consider this to be a fundamentally important question. The discussion here has included references to things such as the "bias inherent in 1st tier scientist's perspectives." If viewpoints such as this are used to reject science, then it would clearly be a waste of time to try to discuss any aspects of global warming. For the remainder of this post, I will assume that the people here are willing to at least consider the possibility that science has something valid to say about the physical reality of what's going on with global warming.
I have spent most of my life working at scientific research organizations, so it should be obvious that I consider science to be useful to society. However, I recognize that the conventional scientific consensus is not always right about things. We all know that in the past there have been times when the consensus has been spectacularly wrong, e.g., the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth. But with further study of a subject, science tends to end up getting it right. However, twenty-five years ago I started to realize that even now science is dreadfully wrong about some things, e.g., psychic phenomena, UFOs, low energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a., "cold fusion"). The reason that science gets it wrong about these subjects is that it refuses to actually study these subjects and seriously look at the data.
On the other hand, global warming is a subject that has been studied more intensely than probably any other subject in human history. I don't think there is any chance that the scientific consensus is wrong about the basics of global warming. The chance is zero that new evidence and further study will show that it is mostly natural rather than caused by human activity or that it is not a serious problem.
I think it is important to recognize that the vast majority of what you hear about the skeptical side of the AGW "debate" is not science. It is propaganda and public relations. As described in the Naomi Oreskes talk that I referred to, the real debate about global warming has been going on in the scientific community for a long time. The skeptics have had decades to make their case, and they have failed to do so. They are now using tobacco-style disinformation to attempt to confuse the public and to prevent or delay taking action to address the problem.
Larry said that he would like to have the "experts" "showing us how they gathered their data, why they interpreted it the way they did, and what some alternative interpretations might be." This is a reasonable request, and the scientists have done this. It is in the form of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (The previous Third Assessment Report is referred to as the TAR.) The report of Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) is available here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlThere are two other working groups that addressed "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" and "Mitigation of Climate Change." This WGI final report incorporates responses to 30,000 comments received on drafts of the report, including comments from any skeptics who cared to comment. If you are not familiar with what the IPCC is and what it does, I would recommend that you read a few pages in the "Front Matter" document, including the very first page, the Foreword, and the Preface. Also, here is a good discussion of the IPCC and the significance of this report:
The Scoop On The New IPCC Climate-Change ReportThe WGI AR4 report contains several levels of detail to address different audiences and needs. The 18-page Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is written to be understandable by politicians, so anybody here should have no difficulty understanding it. The SPM should be considered required reading for anybody who wants to understand something about global warming. Also, I would recommend taking a look at the 35-page Frequently Asked Questions document. In particular, question 2.1 is "How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?" Bottom line: "The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions." This also includes a nice chart that shows the sizes of the various things that affect the climate.
Additional detail is contained in the 74-page WGI AR4 Technical Summary. And, the individual chapters contain even more detail, including references to the scientific literature on which the report is based. Thus, it's all there to be examined by anyone who is interested. The scientists are not being absolutist and demanding that people just take their word for it.
Of course much new research has been done in the two years since AR4 was published. As far as I know, there has been nothing that would cast any substantial doubt on the basic AGW idea. On the other hand, there have been a number of things indicating that global warming is happening faster than anticipated in AR4 and that it will be a bigger problem that indicated in AR4.
As I have indicated, it would be counterproductive to spend time refuting the arguments from the global warming skeptics because it would reinforce the incorrect notion that they are part of a legitimate scientific debate rather than being propaganda and public relations. Also, many of their talking points have been collected and refuted in a number of websites, e.g.:
How To Talk To A Climate SkepticNew Scientist - Climate Change: A Guide For The PerplexedThe Royal Society - Facts And Fictions About Climate ChangeSkeptical Science - Examining The Science Of Global Warming SkepticismClimate Scepticism: The Top 10If you go through these websites, you will be well on the way to being able to spot the bovine excrement when it occurs in things like op-ed pieces and videos from the skeptics.
As another indication of the lack of valid arguments from the skeptics, consider the following:
Climate Change Denial: Nothing But Lies And FraudsThis begins with:
"I have a little challenge … I’m looking for anything from the climate change Deniers that is not a lie, distortion, misrepresentation, or out and out fraud. I am trying to find something, anything, anything at all pertaining to the climate change that we are currently experiencing that: Alleges that it refutes a significant aspect of climate change science, not details (eg quibbling over whether storms get more frequent or not is detail that in no way affects the general facts of climate science). I’m looking for anything that alleges to refute climate change itself, that climate change is anthropocentric, or that it is not a clear and present danger, etc, and Has not already been debunked as total nonsense."
After four months, the skeptics have provided no valid response to this challenge.
Larry has discussed sea level rise and the potential of tides to complicate this issue. The following is a 25-minute video of a NOW program that was on PBS a couple months ago:
Paradise LostThis is about people who are becoming climate refugees and are beginning the process of migrating from their island nation due to rising sea level. I think we can assume that these people have a thorough understanding of tides.
Global warming is not just a theory about what might happen a hundred years in the future. There are many example of how its effects are happening now. One that is currently in the news is the drought and wildfires in Australia:
Australian Bushfires:
When Two Degrees Is The Difference Between Life And DeathFire Down BelowI find it useful to see a variety of viewpoints on global warming, so I regularly monitor about twenty sources of information and commentary. And yes, this includes stuff from the skeptics. I have an email mailbox where I have been saving articles and discussions by and about the skeptics for more than five years. This currently has about 250 entries.
There are many good sources, but I will recommend just two here. First is Dr. James Hansen. Here is his website:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/You can send him an email to be added to his maillist to receive notices when he posts a new commentary, which is about once a month or so. Hansen is the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is considered by many people (including me) to be one of the top climate scientists in the U.S. Hansen has been warning about the global warming problem since he presented testimony to congress twenty years ago. You might encounter a bogus claim that what he told congress has proven to be incorrect. This is basically a lie and a fraud. See "How to talk to a climate skeptic" for details. One of the things posted on his website is the set of slides used for his talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting a couple months ago. The title of this is "Climate Threat to the Planet: Implications for Energy Policy and Intergenerational Justice." If you look at the comments for the slides (page 24 in the PDF file), you will find this: "In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty." The runaway greenhouse effect that he refers to is what we have on Venus, where the surface temperatures are 460 degrees C (more than 800 degrees F), i.e., hot enough to melt lead. Is this something we should be worried about? Or, should we just assume that future generations of humans and other life on the planet will adapt to this if necessary?
The second source I would recommend is Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog:
http://climateprogress.org/I have found Romm's blog to be the single best source of news and commentary on global warming and energy issues. He frequently posts new items - often several times each day.
Larry asked if anyone is talking about killing two birds with one stone (addressing both global warming and economic problems). The answer is yes, of course. There is actually a third related "bird" that needs to be "killed:" peak oil. There are indications that we are now (or soon will be) at peak oil where it will be physically impossible to further increase oil production and production will begin to decline. You can find discussions of these issues on Joe Romm's blog. Also, here's another example:
Fighting Economic Decline And Climate Change SimultaneouslyOne last thing... I would suggest that people not concentrate too much on Al Gore. It's not a question of what Al Gore says verses what the global warming skeptics say. Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician who is trying to convince people to pay attention to what the climate scientists have been trying to tell us for decades.
In my opinion, the debate is over about whether global warming is caused by humans and about whether it is a serious problem. The debate now should be about what we do to address the problem. It's not a question about personal development. It's a question about the survival of life on the planet.
............
Twelve "Any Time, Any Place" Survival Tips (v3.0)
NHNE's Climate Change Resource PageNHNE's 1000 Most Recent Climate Change Articles