Tag: climate change

Posted on

The mistakes of the Industrial Revolution

After reading Spencer R. Wearts book “The Discovery of Climate Change” I realize that the science behind global warming is extremely simple.  As early as the 19th century scientists had already figured out what greenhouse gases were and identified CO2 as a threat.  The logic behind it is also extremely simple, without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the earth would freeze.  Not only were greenhouse gases identified but by the time the industrial revolution was in full swing, scientists already knew that human created machines emitted large quantities of carbon dioxide.  I immediately thought, what were we [they] thinking?  I then began to think about pre-industrial life to a post industrial standard, and I became clear that the idea of machinery and higher standards of living blew environmental preservation right out of the water.  It is simply human nature.  As humans we seek constantly seek to better our lot in life.  As history has shown, long term issues are rarely considered when confronted with short term problems.  That sounds pretty bleak and slightly putting down the entire human race.  While continuing to read, and kept pondering the same question:  “if people knew, why didn’t they try and change then?”  Early industrialization led to machinery that could mass produce items as well as agricultural advances.  At this point, coal smoke was the primary emission of these early machines.  Coal was one of the only viable fuel sources at the time, so of course it was used.  Still this doesn’t explain why people didn’t try and rectify it early on.  I think it is actually pretty clear, and possibly another by product of human nature.  People back then did understand greenhouse gases, but couldn’t begin to comprehend the advances of technology or the true effects of CO2 emissions, in short they couldn’t predict what was to come.

 

By the early 1900’s some people had begin to predict future issues, which fell largely on deaf ears as the developed world was facing many other more”pressing” issues.  Part of me thinks there is blame to be placed on early industry but in reality, there wasn’t many other fuel options.  Only in the last part of the 20th century has technology surpassed fossil fuels.  Now renewable resources and processes for harnessing them are extremely viable.  Maybe there was no other way to industrialize than with fossil fuel, but in todays time, there is certainly enough technology and initiative to rectify those mistakes, and turn from a fossil fuel society to one based on renewables.

Posted on

Disinformation at its finest

Merchants of Doubt paints a bleak picture of the state of affairs, from climate change to general rampant miss information.  In regards to climate change it almost seems that Climate Change has never had a time to shine.  In 1965 Roger Revelle made a prediction that by the year 2000, we would see physical changes in temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  Lyndon Johnson took the report to congress where it was essentially swept under the rug.  Oreskes and conway explain that it was because of timing, there were more pressing concerns.  It is clear that until very recent years there has been a generally downward spiral in the state of the world climate.  In fact environmental issues as a whole always seem to fall low on the “pressing” scale.  It would seem that because many environmental issues are “it will get bad in the future” kind of issues that they rarely seem to be dealt with “now”.  Governmental policies, historically have not seemed to address and project what unchecked issues could potentially have in the future.  Only recently when the current state of the environment has become blatantly apparent have there been more active movements towards preventing future issues.

Apart from the obvious issues presented in Merchants of Doubt, there seems to be one issues that contributes to the others.  The issue of the modern age of communication.  As expressed in the conclusion the right to freedom of the press is a double-edged sword.  As they say everyone has an opinion, and with the advent of the internet, now you can share yours with everyone: “Opinions sometimes express ill-informed beliefs, not reliable knowledge.”  Whats worse is that scientific fact has become harder for people to believe.  By its nature the scientific process is designed to be proven wrong, and change.  experiments are done, data is recorded and a consensus is met, yet with additional research that consensus can change easily and dramatically.  Internet opinion, is organic in that it also changes constantly.  I believe that people have been conditioned to not believe things that change often, that appear “wishy washy”.  Because of this, scientific reasoning appears similar to internet information, and people are less likely to believe.  In the example of climate change science, the addition of nay sayers only reinforces peoples belief that it can not be true.

With the ability of the internet, the words of Alexis de Tocqueville become very prevalent:

“A confused clamor rises on every side, and a thousand voices are heard at once”

Posted on

How to Distort Truth and Neglect Facts

There is always a choice. Right now it is an incredibly important choice; the shift away from a the self-destructive habits that have been formed over the years of our development in order to preserve our global society. The petroleum-based ways of life we have come to know so well has reached a precipice. The planet’s atmosphere is filling with greenhouse gasses at an alarming rate; gasses that the industrialized world are mostly responsible for. That means me,, that means President Obama, that means Aunt Alice in Ithaca. We need to change the way we as a global society operate. For too long have we dumped our waste into the atmosphere. Part of this was due to ignorance. However, as of late, it has been due to inaction.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s Merchants of Doubt explains how several scientists in combination with several think tanks have been able to warp truth and distort facts since the mid-20th century. From tobacco smoke and its link to cancer to the denial of global warming, no chance has been missed by these “merchants” to benefit from regulatory inaction and the misdirection of the public. The authors explain that the merchandising of scientific doubt was seen around the 1970s when scientists began to find links between tobacco smoke and higher rates of cancer. Sensing a possible hit to their revenue, the large tobacco firms began to work together, looking for a way to ensure that no such link was ever seen by the public. They found their answer in a few willing scientists who, through some questionable decisions, were able to temporarily keep the public from completing understanding the dangers of tobacco smokes. It is obvious now that what they did was in vain, as the Surgeon General’s warning is very obviously placed on all tobacco products.

Now these groups are turning to climate change denial. The George C. Marshall Institute, an essential part of keeping alive the possibility of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, found a fresh voice in the climate change discussion. Scientists working within the institute wrote a report that essentially pointed to the sun’s increased solar output as the culprit of a warming Earth. It is also now known that they were wrong. There is now a consensus within the scientific community that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing the enhanced greenhouse effect that is currently being experienced. This consensus may not have existed years ago when the denial began, but scientists knew that the chance of an anthropogenic climatic shift was possible. The Marshall Institute was criticized heavily for the report, but they made their way through and the denial still exists today.

Why do this though? Why deny facts and push doubt unto the public? Personal agendas are partly to blame. The scientists at the heart of the doubt-mongering reports- Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Bill Nierenberg, and Robert Jastrow- were anti-communist and therefore willing to do anything to keep government powers to a minimum, as well as destroy environmentalist who were seen as potential “cousins” to the communists. The think tanks that funded the research received their funding from massive corporations in the concerned industries. These agendas have led policy astray and lended a hand to the inaction experienced today on climate issues. While the debate may still rage on in some corners and inaction still runs rampant, the planet is warming rapidly and everything and everyone is implicated. We have a problem. We know about it. We need to work together to solve it. That starts by agreeing on reality.

Posted on

A Change at Home

Over winter break last year I was on a hike in the hills around my home in San Rafael, California with my two siblings. It was in that space of time between Christmas and New Years and it was an incredible day; not a cloud in the sky and perfectly warm sunshine was hitting us. I have spent long mornings and afternoons throughout my life running and hiking in them, surrounded on either side by tall grasses and oak trees. When you get to the top you are guaranteed a particularly beautiful view of the Bay Area. You can see the Golden Gate Bridge and all the way to the financial district of San Francisco, the East Bay, the Headlands, and the beginnings of Napa.

We were taking a break near the top, gazing at our stunning surroundings. But instead of being comforted by the familiar sights I was on edge looking around. The grass should have be green this time of year but it was the color of straw, we hadn’t needed to jump the creek as we normally did in December; this was the landscape I knew as summertime not winter.

California is in the middle of the worst drought it has ever had on record. In parts of the state the ground has raised up to half an inch because water is no longer weighing it down. Just in the last few years the landscape of my home is being completely altered because of climate change.

I do not consider my self a scientist or even a scientist in the making. Nor have I ever really attempted to delve into the world of science aside from the mandatory classes in elementary through high school. However, in The Discovery of Global Warming, Spencer Weart lead his audience not just through the scientific milestones behind our current understanding of climate change but how other major historical events interacted and informed the blunt science. From the 1896 calculation that asserted global warming was possible through human emissions to the media coverage informing the public in the 80s. The fact is the weather has been changing since the beginning of the industrial revolution and it has been swift. However, we are reaching a point where the consequences are dire if action is not taken just as rapidly.

While reading this book I thought back to that moment with my siblings when I fully understood for the first time that climate change is not in the future, it is here. I also thought back to a poem by Donald Marquis entitled “What the Ants are Saying.” For me, one stanza sums up all the science I know and the personal experiences I have with climate change:

what man calls civilization

always results in deserts

man is never on the square

he uses up the fat and greenery of the earth

each generation wastes a little more

of the future with greed and lust for riches

 

Before And After: Statewide Drought Takes Toll On California's Lake Oroville Water Level

Posted on

Infrastructure: The Road to Survival

road

It’s not sexy. It doesn’t work well on a bumper sticker easily. It doesn’t bring in big donations to charities or get people energized. But infrastructure is the key to our future survival and prosperity. A continually changing climate and environment necessitates advancing infrastructure renewal to keep pace. In Bill McKibben’s Eaarth, a new world is described that is radically different than the one we currently enjoy, and one that we may even begin to experience within our lifetimes. The effects of global warming on this new world, Eaarth, will have serious economic repercussions; for example, Hurricane Katrina caused about $108 billion of damage in the United States. The infrastructure that was in place before the storm was severely insufficient to match the storm, even though predictions had been made before the storm hit in 2005 that the infrastructure needed to be beefed up in case of a direct hit by a hurricane. Had the city’s infrastructure been attended to before the storm, the economic and personal costs to the people of New Orleans would have been far less severe.

A well-maintained infrastructure is pivotal to whether or not we can maintain the lifestyles we have grown accustomed to. If any more delay persists, the global economy will be dangerously unprepared for the looming fate that awaits us just over the horizon. Shocks on the scale of Hurricane Katrina are not going away; they’ll be a fact of life, and we need to be proactive with precautionary measures and fundamental changes to our economic and physical landscape in order to weather the impending storm (pun intended).

However, McKibben is not suggesting just throwing money randomly on infrastructure renewal projects; he implores a smarter, long-term planning perspective that takes into consideration the changes that will happen not only in the next decade or two, but over the next century. Rising sea levels will submerge coastal roads and bridges around the world; rather than repairing those that most likely will be inaccessible in a few years, it’s more effective to repair infrastructure that is out of the danger zone and that will be available for use further into the future. If we’re smart about what and how we overhaul our infrastructure systems, we’ll be far better prepared to withstand what lies ahead.

McKibben said “we’ve got to harden our communities so they can withstand the couple of degrees of global warming that are now inescapable.” Investment in infrastructure is not only to ensure our long-term prosperity, although it is that; it is also to guarantee and protect our ability to adapt and function in the ever-changing world and to survive. Everything is at stake, and it won’t be easy to defend it. But, when you weigh the options, the course of action is clear.

Posted on

Seeds of Change: Sustainable Agriculture

Often when we hear the phrases “eat your greens” or “eating healthy” we do not make the connection with creating a “greener” planet or a healthy climate. Yet, in Diet for a Hot Planet, Anna Lappe makes it clear that our food is inextricably linked with climate change. So often in hearing and learning about the climate crisis on our doorstep (although perhaps now the metaphor should be in our kitchen) I am left with a poignant feeling of despair. I get the sense that the forces perpetuating climate change are too great, and the opposition too meager. However, this book illuminated the incredible potential of sustainable agriculture locked within an otherwise bleak portrait of the future. According to her the current food system is responsible for roughly one third of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. It is to blame for most of the nitrous oxide and methane emissions (two of the most damaging greenhouse gasses). Yet, through changing the way we farm, eat, and dispose of our food, agriculture could sequester roughly forty percent of all current emissions. Rarely, if ever, have I discovered such an obvious change that could make a significant impact on our future.

Personally, these are some of the most hopeful facts I have heard. Not only that, but it is a solution that I, and others within the Dickinson community, are already taking part in directly at the College Farm. Though the farm I have attended the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture conference where I saw the backstage of a movement that has been growing throughout America and abroad. It has been popping up in the form of local farmers markets, cooking in popular restaurants, and taking seed in the grocery aisles now dedicated to “organics.” There are websites devoted to grassroots fundraising for “green” farms, and organizations created to cultivate a herd of young farmers. Just in the past year at Dickinson I have had a direct relationship with sustainable farming, learning its possibilities, successes and promise.

college-photo_18035.

Personally, what is most exciting about sustainable agriculture are it’s many intersections with so many other crucial issues in our society, offering solutions to them as well. What we eat and where it comes from crosses the field to impact many of the systemic health problems and issues of social justice we as a society face. Industrial agriculture relies on petroleum-based, toxic chemicals, synthetic fertilizers and is generally heavily processed (think corn syrup). Two of the leading causes of death in America, heart disease and diabetes, are directly correlated with eating poorly. The process of industrial agriculture also requires farm workers. These workers are habitually some of the most marginalized Americans, often immigrants, at incredibly high risk for cancers and other serious health threats because of the toxins they encounter daily.

Sustainability is not always accessible to Americans, but we have to eat food everyday. For many people it is hard to see the benefits of turning off the lights, taking shorter showers or riding public transportation but our relationship with food is crucial on a primal level, it literally comprises what we are. Sustainable agriculture is one of several key solutions necessary to slow and prevent climate change and it is one we can feel good about doing.

Posted on

The Progression and Importance of GCMs

Science is always evolving. Climate science experienced great leaps forward during the 20th century, largely due to computers and the work of many leading researchers. Before 1896 no one had proposed a theory describing a cooling or warming of the earth, thus with his 1896 publication, Svante Arrhenius was the first to propose the theory of global warming. He found nothing to explain the forcings of the glacial epochs, there was no current understood mechanism that would explain these climatic transitions, but he knew they existed and that something was causing them. However, this landmark publication set the scene for a 20th century full of progress in understanding how the global climate fluctuates and changes.

In the 1930s, the Serbian Milutin Milankovic published about climate forcings due to changes in the earth’s relationship to the sun describing changes in the earth’s axis and elliptic orbit every twenty one thousand, forty one thousand and one hundred thousand years. Milankovic’s work provided the mechanism that Arrhenius had described to force the climate into and out of ice ages (eccentricity being the main driver over the past one million years). Milankovic was able to build on the work of James Croll and use glacial varves present in sediment deposits to correlate celestial events in relation to the earth. Milankovic’s work was crucial in advancing knowledge about paleo climates and thus allowed researchers to dive deeper into the past.

Edward Lorenz looked at much finer scale events in comparison with Milankovitch. In 1965 Lorenz used his computer model to show that small changes in one of his 28 variables in the fourth decimal place (and smaller) could have implications for future weather in as little as days, meaning that small changes in climate models have large implications. These models attempt to reconstruct nature using a computer as a predictive tool, but his observation was important nonetheless. This not only showed the importance (and need for further investigation) of computer models, but also provided a hypothesis as to how the climate could react given small (and seemingly insignificant) human inputs.

Any discussion on climate computer models is not complete without James Hansen. During his time with GISS, Hansen became the most famous climate scientists of the 20th century. Hansen and his team were able to maintain one of the leading models of the earth’s climate systems. Among other accomplishments, Hansen was able to correctly model how the earth’s atmosphere would react in the face of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. Hansen predicted that the earth’s climate would take several years to eliminate the cooling aerosols pumped into the atmosphere by the volcano. In his 1996 publication he confirmed that his predicts had indeed come to fruition, that the earth’s global average temperature did not return to pre-Pinatubo eruptions until 1995.

Weart describes all of this and more in his book “The Discovery of Global Warming”. Over the progression of the timeline above (the Weart’s book) we moved from a vague understanding of global warming with Arrhenius to the complex computer models that have helped to produce our current understanding of future warming trends. Over time, we found smaller scale changes because better techniques and equipment were developed to measure small changes in climate, such as volcanic activity, ENSO events, and other oscillations. These methods have allowed scientists to more precisely determine climate forcings (such as a medium-sized volcanic eruption) instead of speaking in broad terms about large-scale orbital forcings.

Weart seemed to focus a great deal of his book around the importance and history of GCMs (both general circulation models and global climate models). This originally surprised me, but I came to realize the true importance of these models and how effective they can be in helping to predict the future. Current climate science relies on these models to help us understand how the world will be impacted by anthropogenic emissions decades into the future. These models are especially important as we begin to plan on climate adaptations in helping governments and the global community predict where climate change is going to impact the greatest number of people.

 

Some sources and further reading:

Arrhenius, Svante. “XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41.251 (1896): 237-276.

Hansen, J., et al. “Global surface air temperature in 1995: Return to pre‐Pinatubo level.” Geophysical Research Letters 23.13 (1996): 1665-1668.

Hansen, James, et al. “Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo eruption.”Geophysical Research Letters 19.2 (1992): 215-218.

Lorenz, Edward N. “A study of the predictability of a 28‐variable atmospheric model.” Tellus 17.3 (1965): 321-333.

Posted on

When Self-Interest Trumped Truth: The Politicization of Climate Change

global warming science fiction

John Charles Polanyi, the winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics, said that “scholarship – if it is to be scholarship – requires that the truth take precedence over all sectarian interests, including self-interest.” Two years after Polanyi received his award, global warming entered into the general lexicon and public discussion after Dr. James Hansen’s testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee declaring that, with 99% certainty, that “the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.” Climate science immediately became a “political football”, as fossil fuel and big industry scrambled to scour the truth in order to defend their self-interest. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, in Merchants of Doubt, warned that “small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power.” And their efforts changed the global warming discussion forever for that very reason.

While a large body of climate scientists genuinely and honestly pursued impartial and unbiased research on global warming, a small critical mass of individuals, known as “merchants of doubt”, published reports to the contrary, saying that there was actually a cooling trend, and that not enough was known about the climate to act one way or the other. Backed by abounding resources from fossil fuel companies, conservative think tanks and media outlets, their efforts turned global warming from being indisputably correct scientifically to a flimsy theory to provoke fear, and even a referendum on American government itself; cap-and-trade measures to tame down carbon emissions, as they argued, were a government intrusion into the market economy, an interference in personal rights, and indicative of the burgeoning size of the government.

What lied beneath the surface of the campaign of doubt and misinformation was the preservation of the bottom line for the fossil fuel industry for another generation, not the pursuit of scientific truth or the common good. In order for any measurable mitigation or adaptation progress to be made, self-interest must be dropped for the prospects of future generations, financial gain for environmental preservation, and negligence for stewardship. Bob Inglis, former Republican Representative from South Carolina, made the following analogy:

“Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, ‘No, this other is the way to go.’ I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids.”

How long are we willing to take such a big risk and pass the buck off to our children and grandchildren? For their sakes and ours, the time for decisive action is now.

 

Quote by John Charles Polanyi found on www.brainyquote.com.

Quote by Dr. James Hansen found in NYT article, “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate”, 24 June 1988.

Definition of “political football” (to cause a political football is to “thrust a social, national security, or otherwise ostensibly non-political matter into partisan politics”) found in Safire’s Political Dictionary.

Quote from Merchants of Doubt found on page 270.

Quote by former Rep. Bob Inglis found on transcript for PBS Frontline’s program titled “Climate of Doubt,” aired 23 October, 2012.

 

Posted on

Now That We Know The Planet Is Warmer, What Do We Do?

So let’s see if I can get this timeline straight: in 1824 Joseph Fourier began to question how the Earth’s average temperature is determined. He then found that the atmosphere is responsible for trapping infrared radiation that reflects off of the surface of the Earth. Fourier also decided that the atmosphere must let out some of the infrared radiation. In 1859 this phenomenon was tested by John Tyndall. Tyndall discovered that some gases such as Carbon Dioxide are not transparent to infrared radiation, as was the commonly held belief. He proposed that if changes in the concentrations of these gases (now known as the greenhouse gasses) could bring about changes in the climate system. His research was picked up in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who, using crude data and a pencil showed that by adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere humans could change the temperature of the Earth.

Skip ahead to 1938, when Guy Stewart Callendar spoke on the topic of climate change before the Royal Meteorological Society. He argued that rising levels of Carbon Dioxide were leading to rises in global temperature averages. After World War II the U.S. office of Naval Research began to pour money into scientific research. Some of this research was very useful in understanding climate change. It was justified by the idea that in war, controlling the natural elements or at least predicting them could lead to victory. Roger Revelle was one of the benefactors of this funding. He and Hans Suess published a paper that while contradictory in writing showed the the oceans would absorb some of the atmospheric carbon but not all. After this publication it became obvious to Revelle and others interested in studying climate change that if carbon emissions were to increase exponentially, then real changes in the climate could be seen within several decades.

During the 1950s Charles Keeling was building an instrument that could accurately measure Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. In 1960 he published his findings, a rise in annual concentrations of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. This publication led to the recognition, that research into the possibility of Global Warming, was serious. Over the next two decades more funding was put into the hands of scientists researching elements of global climate change. These scientists began to organize and share findings at meetings and conventions. The field was becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Certain environmental disasters and Earth Day also lent a hand to the credibility of the research. The public began to become informed, and concerned. This meant that the political sphere was getting involved too.

With a combination of interdisciplinary research, advances in technology, and interest from parties such as NASA it was becoming clear that greenhouse gasses resulting from human activity were leading to a warming planet. This led to several international conventions and agreements. In 1990 the first IPCC report stated that the planet has been warming and continued warming is extremely likely. That has really brought us to where we are today, heading into COP 20, with a big decision to make and not a large amount of time to make it. It is recognized by large governments what is going on. Parties are coming to the table, but they are not communicating.

Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming tells that tale that I wrote of above in much more detail. It describes the wrong turns that research took in the face of what appeared to be good evidence. It shows the influence war and political games had on the research as a whole. More importantly it leaves a message just at the end that tells how every single human being will need to adjust the way they live as the planet warms. Part of this begins with staying informed and informing others, it also means acting responsibly whether that means walking to the farmers market instead of driving to the supercenter, or choosing to act on behalf of the world’s citizens while sitting as a member of the United States Congress instead of on behalf of industry lobby groups.

 

Posted on

Recipe For Climate Change

images-1

Upon hearing the phrase “climate change” most people would then associate it with the emissions from gas-guzzling Hummers. What they don’t realize is whether you drive a Hummer, a Prius, or ride a bike, as humans we are all contributing to climate change.. three times a day actually, starting with breakfast, lunch, and dinner (dessert counts too!) While the transportation sector might be thought as being the most detrimental to climate change, in reality it is the food sector that is the most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming. In fact, livestock alone contributes to more GHG emissions than the worlds TOTAL transportation emissions. People have heard the whole “reduce, reuse, recycle” as a common guide to solving the climate crisis, however they are unaware of another way to lessen climate change.. starting right from our dinner plates. Greenhouse gasses are involved in every step of the food sector: production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste– we are all guilty of that! With the entire process of food production being hidden from the modern eater it is no wonder why it is commonly forgotten to be seen as a HUGE contributor to global warming. In her book, Diet For A Hot Planet, Anna Lappe maps out a recipe for change in seven principles to follow in order to have a climate-friendly diet. 1. Eat Real/Whole Foods 2. Fill your plate with plants 3. Go Organic 4. Go Local 5. Eliminate your food waste 6. Consider packaging 7. DIY Food. This seems like an easy enough recipe to follow, and it certainly is beneficial to not only the planet’s health but our individual health as well, so why hasn’t this recipe for change caught on by all producers and consumers?