An Inconvienent Truth
- Thread starter mouth_my_nuts
- Start date
Yeah but those things we can directly see why they would be bad without running computer simulations. And as some climate alarmists are saying we are already past the point of no return, its kinda hard to get motivated to want to solve that problem...the things I mentioned are more important than carbon emissions IMO. but yeah obviously less forests is bad for the climate models.
also, IMO there should be enough motivation for change to happen without convincing people of doom and gloom coming if we do not. we should just respect the earth more.
also, IMO there should be enough motivation for change to happen without convincing people of doom and gloom coming if we do not. we should just respect the earth more.
LMAO, read this:
http://lowcarbonkid.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-geoclimatic-studies-hoax-and-what.html
http://lowcarbonkid.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-geoclimatic-studies-hoax-and-what.html
Saturday, November 10, 2007
That Geoclimatic Studies hoax - and what it was about
Are there only opinions about reality, that we can only trade insults about, or is it possible to refer to independent, or 'objective' correlations for those opinions, which can be what they're based on, and be tested?
The debate on whether modern climate change is caused by human behaviour or due to natural cycles is for some highly emotive, because a great deal of vested interest and money depends on the outcome*.
The sceptics can be divided into two camps: those who base their arguments on a good and transparent understanding of the science and economics; and those who don't, instead attacking the proponents on personal grounds. And they do get extremely vituperative.
I recently collaborated in an elaborate hoax - called "a spoof that puts the fun back into lying about science" by desmogblog - that was intended to smoke out the latter sort. It was so successful it was syndicated across 600 radio stations in the US.
A client wrote a fake paper, purporting to 'prove' that rather than fossil fuel burning it was the previously undetected emissions from undersea bacteria which were responsible for the last 140 years' increase in atmospheric concentrations.
We said it was from a fake 'Journal of Geoclimatic Studies', based at a fake Institute of Geoclimatic Studies at Okinawa University, in Japan. We had a fake Editorial Board, back issues, editorial and other papers.
The 4000 word paper itself, Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory? contained graphs and numerous references, and was launched on its own website late afternoon on 7 November. (It has since been taken down.)
Within a few hours, the blogosphere was ablaze with the news, and a number of bloggers fell for the scam. However, we had deliberately made it fairly transparent, and easy to see that it was not a genuine paper. After all, a simple 'whois' look-up revealed my name as the domain owner, and Googling the contributors or the institution drew a blank.
I took several calls from Science magazine, Nature, and Reuters news agency. These were genuinely interested in the process and I passed on their contact details to the writer.
Well-known sceptic Benny Peiser posted the paper to his discussion group, but an hour later (to his credit) sent a second message saying that it appears he was duped. Neil Craig at 'A Place to Stand' said "this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory".
'Reason Magazine' posted the story and then tore it down, as did quite a few others.
More interesting were the personal emails we got, ranging from the congratulatory to the insulting, including this one from journalist and environmental health campaigner Theo Richel: "Usually we skeptics are accused of deliberately causing confusion, now we catch you doing it. Bit like what Michael Crichton predicted in his Climate of Fear, environmentalists would do. Great visionary skeptic that man. So I’ll gladly keep you as an example of the journalists who need fiction to prove their point. And then fail."
I happen to think Theo is a reasonable man. He, like me, believes, that we need sound scientific evidence on which to base policy. He, like me, is sceptical of some of the claims of the environmental movement, who do often exaggerate and scare. I have personal experience of this having been at the heart of the MMR vaccine debate, where I presented the balanced viewpoint on the Department of health's immunisation website as its editor. He, like me, thinks that policy should be made on the basis of proper risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis (return on investment), if we are to deal with real-world economic choices.
We'll have to agree to differ on our attitude to Michael Crichton.
But I'm a satirist, and a fiction writer by trade as well as a journalist. (And, yes, I can tell the difference.) Sometimes fiction and satire can reach places facts alone can't - in the right context. Whether we can be said to have failed depends on what we set out to achieve.
For me, the point is that entrenched opinions lead to trading insults and a lack of self-critical rigour when it comes to examining the facts - the basis of the argument.
What the hoax showed is that there are many people willing to jump on anything that supports their argument, whether it's true or not.
What we wanted to emphasise is that it's necessary to achieve scientific validity using the peer-review model. Proper climate science makes every attempt to do this, and is a constantly evolving and self-refining process, as all science is.
So, when commentator posted on my blog - sarcastically - "....And we do all have to go with the "scientific consensus" don't we?" - I can only say, if we haven't got the scientific consensus then what have we got?
_________
*However I am always surprised why this is the case. Regardless of what is the cause of global warming, most agree that it is occurring. So whether human beings caused it or not, it still needs to be minimised and adapted to.
That Geoclimatic Studies hoax - and what it was about
Are there only opinions about reality, that we can only trade insults about, or is it possible to refer to independent, or 'objective' correlations for those opinions, which can be what they're based on, and be tested?
The debate on whether modern climate change is caused by human behaviour or due to natural cycles is for some highly emotive, because a great deal of vested interest and money depends on the outcome*.
The sceptics can be divided into two camps: those who base their arguments on a good and transparent understanding of the science and economics; and those who don't, instead attacking the proponents on personal grounds. And they do get extremely vituperative.
I recently collaborated in an elaborate hoax - called "a spoof that puts the fun back into lying about science" by desmogblog - that was intended to smoke out the latter sort. It was so successful it was syndicated across 600 radio stations in the US.
A client wrote a fake paper, purporting to 'prove' that rather than fossil fuel burning it was the previously undetected emissions from undersea bacteria which were responsible for the last 140 years' increase in atmospheric concentrations.
We said it was from a fake 'Journal of Geoclimatic Studies', based at a fake Institute of Geoclimatic Studies at Okinawa University, in Japan. We had a fake Editorial Board, back issues, editorial and other papers.
The 4000 word paper itself, Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory? contained graphs and numerous references, and was launched on its own website late afternoon on 7 November. (It has since been taken down.)
Within a few hours, the blogosphere was ablaze with the news, and a number of bloggers fell for the scam. However, we had deliberately made it fairly transparent, and easy to see that it was not a genuine paper. After all, a simple 'whois' look-up revealed my name as the domain owner, and Googling the contributors or the institution drew a blank.
I took several calls from Science magazine, Nature, and Reuters news agency. These were genuinely interested in the process and I passed on their contact details to the writer.
Well-known sceptic Benny Peiser posted the paper to his discussion group, but an hour later (to his credit) sent a second message saying that it appears he was duped. Neil Craig at 'A Place to Stand' said "this paper could not be more damaging to manmade global warming theory".
'Reason Magazine' posted the story and then tore it down, as did quite a few others.
More interesting were the personal emails we got, ranging from the congratulatory to the insulting, including this one from journalist and environmental health campaigner Theo Richel: "Usually we skeptics are accused of deliberately causing confusion, now we catch you doing it. Bit like what Michael Crichton predicted in his Climate of Fear, environmentalists would do. Great visionary skeptic that man. So I’ll gladly keep you as an example of the journalists who need fiction to prove their point. And then fail."
I happen to think Theo is a reasonable man. He, like me, believes, that we need sound scientific evidence on which to base policy. He, like me, is sceptical of some of the claims of the environmental movement, who do often exaggerate and scare. I have personal experience of this having been at the heart of the MMR vaccine debate, where I presented the balanced viewpoint on the Department of health's immunisation website as its editor. He, like me, thinks that policy should be made on the basis of proper risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis (return on investment), if we are to deal with real-world economic choices.
We'll have to agree to differ on our attitude to Michael Crichton.
But I'm a satirist, and a fiction writer by trade as well as a journalist. (And, yes, I can tell the difference.) Sometimes fiction and satire can reach places facts alone can't - in the right context. Whether we can be said to have failed depends on what we set out to achieve.
For me, the point is that entrenched opinions lead to trading insults and a lack of self-critical rigour when it comes to examining the facts - the basis of the argument.
What the hoax showed is that there are many people willing to jump on anything that supports their argument, whether it's true or not.
What we wanted to emphasise is that it's necessary to achieve scientific validity using the peer-review model. Proper climate science makes every attempt to do this, and is a constantly evolving and self-refining process, as all science is.
So, when commentator posted on my blog - sarcastically - "....And we do all have to go with the "scientific consensus" don't we?" - I can only say, if we haven't got the scientific consensus then what have we got?
_________
*However I am always surprised why this is the case. Regardless of what is the cause of global warming, most agree that it is occurring. So whether human beings caused it or not, it still needs to be minimised and adapted to.
and this:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iggsAV8wEXjxCt-QucSew1khh_oQ
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iggsAV8wEXjxCt-QucSew1khh_oQ
Climate change report to warn of potentially 'irreversible' impacts
VALENCIA, Spain (AFP) — Less than three weeks before a crucial conference on climate change, UN experts agreed Friday on a draft report that warns global warming may have far-reaching and irreversible consequences.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is designed to guide policymakers for the next five years.
Delegates to the Nobel-winning scientific authority agreed the draft after night-long negotiations, chief French delegate Marc Gillet told AFP.
Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said.
The report will be officially adopted on Saturday, followed by a press conference attended by United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon.
It summarises three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril.
After Saturday, attention shifts to a key meeting in Bali, Indonesia, where governments must set down a "roadmap" for negotiations culminating in a deal to slash carbon emissions and help developing nations cope with climate change.
The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth's temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, as "climate sceptics" often aver.
The impacts of climate change are already visible, in the form of retreating glaciers and snow loss in alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost, according to the three IPCC reports issued earlier this year.
But sometimes sharp disagreement emerged during the five days of negotiations in Valencia to hammer out the summary, even though the main findings remained untouched.
US delegates in particular said references to "irreversible" climate change and impacts were imprecise.
They argued, for example, that the melting of glaciers or ice sheets -- which could raise ocean levels by several meters (a dozen feet) -- was not "irreversible" as ice could eventually reform.
"But we are not dealing with geological time scales of tens of thousands of years," said one delegate, irked by this reasoning. "We are talking about dire consequences to humans and the environment in the coming decades."
By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels, while sea levels will rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (7.2 and 23.2 inches), according to the IPCC's forecast.
Heatwaves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century.
As a result, water shortages, hunger, flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat.
"All countries" will be affected, according to the IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creating the problem.
Green groups applauded the provisional report, saying it hiked pressure on world leaders to curb greenhouse gases.
"The result appears to be much better than we had expected going into the meeting," said Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace, which along with the WWF is an official observer at IPCC meetings.
"It could be a groundbreaking document to pave the way for deep emissions cuts by developed countries," said WWF's Stephan Singer.
Belgian IPCC delegate Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said his concerns that the synthesis would only be a "cut-and-paste" rather than a coherent summary proved unfounded.
He pointed to a draft section on "key vulnerabilities" that distilled the main reasons for concern about global warming.
Despite sharp challenges, especially from the US, the text remained intact, making "the problems more prominent," he said.
The IPCC won this year's Nobel Peace Prize alongside climate campaigner and former US vice president Al Gore.
The December 3-14 conference in Bali aims at deepening and accelerating cuts in greenhouse-gas pollution after 2012, when current pledges under the UN's Kyoto Protocol expire.
There is now broad agreement on the amplifying scale of the problem, but countries remain sharply divided on how to tackle it, fearing economic costs and loss of competitive advantage
VALENCIA, Spain (AFP) — Less than three weeks before a crucial conference on climate change, UN experts agreed Friday on a draft report that warns global warming may have far-reaching and irreversible consequences.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is designed to guide policymakers for the next five years.
Delegates to the Nobel-winning scientific authority agreed the draft after night-long negotiations, chief French delegate Marc Gillet told AFP.
Human activities "could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts," the agreed text said.
The report will be officially adopted on Saturday, followed by a press conference attended by United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon.
It summarises three massive documents issued this year covering the evidence for climate change; the present and possible future impacts of it; and the options for tackling the peril.
After Saturday, attention shifts to a key meeting in Bali, Indonesia, where governments must set down a "roadmap" for negotiations culminating in a deal to slash carbon emissions and help developing nations cope with climate change.
The IPCC experts agreed that the rise in Earth's temperature observed in the past few decades was principally due to human causes, not natural ones, as "climate sceptics" often aver.
The impacts of climate change are already visible, in the form of retreating glaciers and snow loss in alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost, according to the three IPCC reports issued earlier this year.
But sometimes sharp disagreement emerged during the five days of negotiations in Valencia to hammer out the summary, even though the main findings remained untouched.
US delegates in particular said references to "irreversible" climate change and impacts were imprecise.
They argued, for example, that the melting of glaciers or ice sheets -- which could raise ocean levels by several meters (a dozen feet) -- was not "irreversible" as ice could eventually reform.
"But we are not dealing with geological time scales of tens of thousands of years," said one delegate, irked by this reasoning. "We are talking about dire consequences to humans and the environment in the coming decades."
By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels, while sea levels will rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (7.2 and 23.2 inches), according to the IPCC's forecast.
Heatwaves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century.
As a result, water shortages, hunger, flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat.
"All countries" will be affected, according to the IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creating the problem.
Green groups applauded the provisional report, saying it hiked pressure on world leaders to curb greenhouse gases.
"The result appears to be much better than we had expected going into the meeting," said Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace, which along with the WWF is an official observer at IPCC meetings.
"It could be a groundbreaking document to pave the way for deep emissions cuts by developed countries," said WWF's Stephan Singer.
Belgian IPCC delegate Jean-Pascal van Ypersele said his concerns that the synthesis would only be a "cut-and-paste" rather than a coherent summary proved unfounded.
He pointed to a draft section on "key vulnerabilities" that distilled the main reasons for concern about global warming.
Despite sharp challenges, especially from the US, the text remained intact, making "the problems more prominent," he said.
The IPCC won this year's Nobel Peace Prize alongside climate campaigner and former US vice president Al Gore.
The December 3-14 conference in Bali aims at deepening and accelerating cuts in greenhouse-gas pollution after 2012, when current pledges under the UN's Kyoto Protocol expire.
There is now broad agreement on the amplifying scale of the problem, but countries remain sharply divided on how to tackle it, fearing economic costs and loss of competitive advantage
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ansens-new-call-for-climate-action/index.html
November 28, 2007, 9:07 pm
‘Averting Our Eyes’: James Hansen’s New Call for Climate Action
By Andrew C. Revkin
James E. Hansen of NASA, brushing off coal-industry criticisms but acknowledging the need to be sensitive to people still haunted by the Holocaust, has elaborated on what he meant when he recently described continued coal burning as akin to sending untold species to their destruction in “death trains” and crematoria.
He posted a long note on the matter, titled “Averting Our Eyes,” on his Columbia University home page tonight.
I asked if we could publish excerpts. “I prefer that you post it in toto,” he said in an e-mail message. “Somehow I have trouble with things out of context. Also my aim is to educate on the broader problem, not just the narrow things that seem to get picked up on.”
The full text is below.
Dr. Hansen, like many who commented on Dot Earth after I wrote about his statements, insists that the parallels hold between the denial and passivity that allowed a human cataclysm to sweep Europe in plain sight and the denial and inaction now as the world prepares to build hundreds of conventional coal-burning power plants. In his recent statements and the new one, he warns that the tens of billions of tons of resulting emissions of carbon dioxide, if not captured and stored, will disrupt climate patterns, ecosystems and sea levels that have been remarkably stable through most of modern human history. The result will be an end to “creation” as we have grown to love it, he says.
Dr. Hansen’s note:
Averting Our Eyes
E-mails received regarding the letter from the National Mining Association CEO and my letter to him (LINK, pdf file) suggest a need for an apology on my part and a clarification of the bottom line. Some context is required.
Generational knowledge and responsibility.
The threat of global warming did not become clear until the present generation. Empirical evidence of warming was masked by weather fluctuations, and warming was kept small, temporarily, by the inertia of deep oceans. We cannot blame our ancestors for burning fossil fuels in an uncontrolled way. They worked hard to bring themselves and their children a better life. Their greenhouse emissions are small in comparison to ours. Any effect of their emissions on our climate is truly inadvertent.
Ignorance is no excuse for us. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming, its causes, and many of its implications. Today’s generations will be accountable, and how tall we stand remains to be determined. There is still time, but just barely.
Status of the planet.
Human-made greenhouse gas emissions today are enormous, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), with annual emissions of over 8 Gigatons of carbon and average annual increases of about 2 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the air. For the past 30 years the planet has been warming at a rate of about 0.2°C per decade. And the planet is out of energy balance by between ½ and 1 W/m2 (more energy coming in than going out), so additional warming of about 0.5°C is “in the pipeline.” These facts are no cause for despair. There are enough health-damaging pollutants in the air today such that, if they (tropospheric ozone, its principal precursor methane, black soot, and some other trace gases that contribute to the global warming) were reduced by feasible amounts, the planet’s energy balance could be restored, or nearly so. That is a doable task, and it would have many side benefits.
The primary challenge is the need to limit future emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). A substantial fraction, about one-fifth, of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions stays in the air for more than 1000 years. Thus whether we burn a fuel and release the CO2 today or next year does not matter all that much with respect to the end result. Conservation of precious fossil fuels is important — it is needed to give us time to develop energy sources and life styles to fit the era “beyond fossil fuels” — but we must realize that there is a limit on the total fossil fuel CO2 that we inject into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands) and release the CO2 into the air without creating a different planet.
Burning all fossil fuels, if the CO2 is released into the air, would destroy creation, the planet with its animal and plant life as it has existed for the past several thousand years, the time of civilization, the Holocene, the period of relative climate stability, warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Eurasia, but cool enough to maintain Antarctic and Greenland ice, and thus a stable sea level. We cannot pretend that we do not know the consequences of burning all fossil fuels.
Basic fossil fuel facts.
Most of the increase of CO2 in the air today, relative to preindustrial times, is due to burning of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel contribution to CO2 in the air today is due about 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. The annual increments for the past few decades have been slightly larger for oil than for coal, but coal use has accelerated in the past few years, and in the long run coal will be the greatest source because of its larger reserves (discovered deposits) and estimated resources (deposits still to be discovered).
There is a raging battle today about the size of fossil fuel reserves and resources, with “peakists” claiming that we are already at or near peak production of both oil and coal because the amounts of economically recoverable fuels in the ground are more limited than the fossil fuel industry has admitted. Evidence that reserves and resources have been overstated is strong. But it is also clear that, absent a price on carbon emissions, as the price of energy rises, the amount of economically extractable fossil fuels increases, including unconventional fossil fuels.
Regardless of reserve and resource uncertainties, we know there are enough fossil fuels to destroy the planet as we know it, if their CO2 is released into the atmosphere. But the potential contributions of oil and gas to future CO2 are limited even if we accept industry estimates (LINK, pdf file). CO2 from oil can be further limited via a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions that discourages industry from going to the most extreme environments in the world (such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Antarctica) to extract every last drop of oil.
Actions needed to stabilize climate.
Two fossil fuel facts define the basic actions that are required to preserve our planet’s climate: (1) it is impractical to capture CO2 as it is emitted by vehicles (the mass of emitted CO2 is about three times larger than the mass of fuel in the tank), and (2) there is much more CO2 contained in coal and unconventional fossil fuels than in oil and gas. As a consequence, the strategy for saving creation must have two basic elements.
First, and this is 80% of the solution, coal use must be phased out except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Thus there should be a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants until the technology for CO2 capture and sequestration is ready. Second, there must be a moderate price on carbon emissions, and both businesses and consumers must recognize that this carbon price will continue to increase in the future. This price, and realization of further increases, will drive innovations for energy efficiency, renewable energies, and other forms of energy that do not produce CO2. There are a variety of ways to impose this price, including industry cap-and-trade, individual carbon allowances and fuel taxes that can be designed to be fair. The need to restructure taxes to encourage development of clean energies does not need to imply a large increase of the net tax load, nor does it imply destruction of the economy. On the contrary, common sense suggests that many good jobs will be created in industries focused on energy efficiency, renewable energies and other clean energy sources. A carbon price alone is not enough, because it must start at a moderate level to avoid economic disruption.
Thus governments must take other actions such as changing rules so that utilities make money by encouraging conservation, increasing efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, electronic goods, etc., and investing much more in energy research and development. The carbon price will assure that we do not pursue absurd energy pathways, such as cooking the Rocky Mountains to drip oil out of tar shale. We must instead focus on the actions needed to achieve the clean environment of the future, with a stable climate that can continue to support all life, in the era beyond fossil fuels. As industry and the public realize where energy policies are headed, positive feedbacks and innovations are likely, so change will begin to happen rapidly. Indeed, much of the coal may be left in the ground. This is not a bad thing, halting mercury pollution of our oceans, mountaintop removal, and pollution of our streams.
One more point needs to be made. We are already near, and probably somewhat beyond, the maximum level of atmospheric CO2 that we need to allow, if we wish to preserve a planet like the one we inherited. But this realization, too, is no cause for despair. Each year the earth has been taking up, on average, 43% of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions. There is a limit on the earth’s capacity to take up CO2 on time scales less than millennia, but there are other actions that we can take in addition to the two major ones described above. Additional actions include improved agricultural practices that enhance carbon sequestration in the soil, and improved forestry practices that reduce emissions from deforestation. The actions described are doable, and they make climate stabilization manageable. It should be noted that the resulting planet, with clean air and water, is also more attractive for humans and other species.
Coal trains and reactions.
Recently a coal industry official tried to divert attention from the actions that are needed to solve the climate problem by criticizing a specific paragraph in my testimony opposing construction of a new coal-fired power plant that does not capture its CO2 emissions (LINK, pdf file). The paragraph in my testimony mischaracterized was:
Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the preindustrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.
This paragraph described thoughts that went through my head as I observed a remarkable string, mile after mile, of coal trains. My words did not resemble their reconstruction by the coal executive, and I certainly did not mean to trivialize suffering by the families who lost relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, it is clear from reactions that several people were hurt by the words. Three scientific colleagues, including one who lost several relatives in the Holocaust, have expressed strong disappointment about the words. A much larger number of people expressed support for the statement, but I think that more weight must be given to those who objected, as their concerns were heartfelt and understandable.
My apology and discussion.
I regret that my words caused pain to some readers. I hope that they will accept my apology for having caused discomfort, an apology that is heartfelt. Here, not in defense of my words, rather to make two further points, I provide the comments of two other people:
Jim, I thought that your equating the coal trains in Iowa with holocaust death trains an apt and reasonable analogy. It does not at all trivialize the suffering and deaths of European Jews but rather is a tribute to them. They will not all have died in vain if the horror and inhumanity of the holocaust can be used to wake up the world to the catastrophic consequences of continued pollution of the earth’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide. XXXXX
Jim: As a Jew, who is sensitive about misuse of references to the holocaust, I found no problem with your metaphor… nor to your response to the CEO…except for the reference to “creation”! YYYYY
My supposition was that most people would take the reference in the way indicated by the first of the last two comments. One merit of references and memorials to the Holocaust is as a reminder that we cannot allow such an event again, we cannot avert our eyes. As for reference to “creation,” my feeling about that topic developed during a meeting with evangelical leaders on a Georgia plantation. We found no reason for conflict between science and religion, but many reasons for working together. We all felt strongly about the need for stewardship, for passing on to our children and grandchildren the planet that we received, with its remarkable forms of life.
Summary and a possible alternative metaphor.
My concern is with trying to close the gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community, and what is known by those who need to know, the public and policy makers. I think that we still have a long way to go in making the danger clear, in part because of the inertia of the climate system and the danger of passing tipping points — points at which little or no additional forcing is needed to cause large, relatively rapid, undesirable effects. Our fellow species feel the danger in climate change. Animals are not on the run for the sake of exercise (LINK, pdf file). But they do not control what is happening. We do. We cannot avert our eyes and pretend that we do not understand the consequences of continued “business as usual.”
A related alternative metaphor, perhaps less objectionable while still making the most basic point, comes to mind in connection with an image of crashing of massive ice sheets fronts into the sea — an image of relevance to both climate tipping points and consequences (sea level rise). Can these crashing glaciers serve as a Krystal Nacht, and wake us up to the inhumane consequences of averting our eyes?
Alas, that metaphor probably would be greeted with the same reaction from the people who objected to the first. That reaction may have been spurred by the clever mischaracterization of the CEO, aiming to achieve just such a reaction. So far that seems to have been the story: the special interests have been cleverer than us, preventing the public from seeing the crisis that should be in view. It is hard for me to think of a different equally poignant example of the foreseeable consequence faced by fellow creatures on the planet. Suggestions are welcome.
‘Averting Our Eyes’: James Hansen’s New Call for Climate Action
By Andrew C. Revkin
James E. Hansen of NASA, brushing off coal-industry criticisms but acknowledging the need to be sensitive to people still haunted by the Holocaust, has elaborated on what he meant when he recently described continued coal burning as akin to sending untold species to their destruction in “death trains” and crematoria.
He posted a long note on the matter, titled “Averting Our Eyes,” on his Columbia University home page tonight.
I asked if we could publish excerpts. “I prefer that you post it in toto,” he said in an e-mail message. “Somehow I have trouble with things out of context. Also my aim is to educate on the broader problem, not just the narrow things that seem to get picked up on.”
The full text is below.
Dr. Hansen, like many who commented on Dot Earth after I wrote about his statements, insists that the parallels hold between the denial and passivity that allowed a human cataclysm to sweep Europe in plain sight and the denial and inaction now as the world prepares to build hundreds of conventional coal-burning power plants. In his recent statements and the new one, he warns that the tens of billions of tons of resulting emissions of carbon dioxide, if not captured and stored, will disrupt climate patterns, ecosystems and sea levels that have been remarkably stable through most of modern human history. The result will be an end to “creation” as we have grown to love it, he says.
Dr. Hansen’s note:
Averting Our Eyes
E-mails received regarding the letter from the National Mining Association CEO and my letter to him (LINK, pdf file) suggest a need for an apology on my part and a clarification of the bottom line. Some context is required.
Generational knowledge and responsibility.
The threat of global warming did not become clear until the present generation. Empirical evidence of warming was masked by weather fluctuations, and warming was kept small, temporarily, by the inertia of deep oceans. We cannot blame our ancestors for burning fossil fuels in an uncontrolled way. They worked hard to bring themselves and their children a better life. Their greenhouse emissions are small in comparison to ours. Any effect of their emissions on our climate is truly inadvertent.
Ignorance is no excuse for us. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming, its causes, and many of its implications. Today’s generations will be accountable, and how tall we stand remains to be determined. There is still time, but just barely.
Status of the planet.
Human-made greenhouse gas emissions today are enormous, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), with annual emissions of over 8 Gigatons of carbon and average annual increases of about 2 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the air. For the past 30 years the planet has been warming at a rate of about 0.2°C per decade. And the planet is out of energy balance by between ½ and 1 W/m2 (more energy coming in than going out), so additional warming of about 0.5°C is “in the pipeline.” These facts are no cause for despair. There are enough health-damaging pollutants in the air today such that, if they (tropospheric ozone, its principal precursor methane, black soot, and some other trace gases that contribute to the global warming) were reduced by feasible amounts, the planet’s energy balance could be restored, or nearly so. That is a doable task, and it would have many side benefits.
The primary challenge is the need to limit future emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). A substantial fraction, about one-fifth, of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions stays in the air for more than 1000 years. Thus whether we burn a fuel and release the CO2 today or next year does not matter all that much with respect to the end result. Conservation of precious fossil fuels is important — it is needed to give us time to develop energy sources and life styles to fit the era “beyond fossil fuels” — but we must realize that there is a limit on the total fossil fuel CO2 that we inject into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands) and release the CO2 into the air without creating a different planet.
Burning all fossil fuels, if the CO2 is released into the air, would destroy creation, the planet with its animal and plant life as it has existed for the past several thousand years, the time of civilization, the Holocene, the period of relative climate stability, warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Eurasia, but cool enough to maintain Antarctic and Greenland ice, and thus a stable sea level. We cannot pretend that we do not know the consequences of burning all fossil fuels.
Basic fossil fuel facts.
Most of the increase of CO2 in the air today, relative to preindustrial times, is due to burning of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel contribution to CO2 in the air today is due about 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. The annual increments for the past few decades have been slightly larger for oil than for coal, but coal use has accelerated in the past few years, and in the long run coal will be the greatest source because of its larger reserves (discovered deposits) and estimated resources (deposits still to be discovered).
There is a raging battle today about the size of fossil fuel reserves and resources, with “peakists” claiming that we are already at or near peak production of both oil and coal because the amounts of economically recoverable fuels in the ground are more limited than the fossil fuel industry has admitted. Evidence that reserves and resources have been overstated is strong. But it is also clear that, absent a price on carbon emissions, as the price of energy rises, the amount of economically extractable fossil fuels increases, including unconventional fossil fuels.
Regardless of reserve and resource uncertainties, we know there are enough fossil fuels to destroy the planet as we know it, if their CO2 is released into the atmosphere. But the potential contributions of oil and gas to future CO2 are limited even if we accept industry estimates (LINK, pdf file). CO2 from oil can be further limited via a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions that discourages industry from going to the most extreme environments in the world (such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Antarctica) to extract every last drop of oil.
Actions needed to stabilize climate.
Two fossil fuel facts define the basic actions that are required to preserve our planet’s climate: (1) it is impractical to capture CO2 as it is emitted by vehicles (the mass of emitted CO2 is about three times larger than the mass of fuel in the tank), and (2) there is much more CO2 contained in coal and unconventional fossil fuels than in oil and gas. As a consequence, the strategy for saving creation must have two basic elements.
First, and this is 80% of the solution, coal use must be phased out except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Thus there should be a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants until the technology for CO2 capture and sequestration is ready. Second, there must be a moderate price on carbon emissions, and both businesses and consumers must recognize that this carbon price will continue to increase in the future. This price, and realization of further increases, will drive innovations for energy efficiency, renewable energies, and other forms of energy that do not produce CO2. There are a variety of ways to impose this price, including industry cap-and-trade, individual carbon allowances and fuel taxes that can be designed to be fair. The need to restructure taxes to encourage development of clean energies does not need to imply a large increase of the net tax load, nor does it imply destruction of the economy. On the contrary, common sense suggests that many good jobs will be created in industries focused on energy efficiency, renewable energies and other clean energy sources. A carbon price alone is not enough, because it must start at a moderate level to avoid economic disruption.
Thus governments must take other actions such as changing rules so that utilities make money by encouraging conservation, increasing efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, electronic goods, etc., and investing much more in energy research and development. The carbon price will assure that we do not pursue absurd energy pathways, such as cooking the Rocky Mountains to drip oil out of tar shale. We must instead focus on the actions needed to achieve the clean environment of the future, with a stable climate that can continue to support all life, in the era beyond fossil fuels. As industry and the public realize where energy policies are headed, positive feedbacks and innovations are likely, so change will begin to happen rapidly. Indeed, much of the coal may be left in the ground. This is not a bad thing, halting mercury pollution of our oceans, mountaintop removal, and pollution of our streams.
One more point needs to be made. We are already near, and probably somewhat beyond, the maximum level of atmospheric CO2 that we need to allow, if we wish to preserve a planet like the one we inherited. But this realization, too, is no cause for despair. Each year the earth has been taking up, on average, 43% of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions. There is a limit on the earth’s capacity to take up CO2 on time scales less than millennia, but there are other actions that we can take in addition to the two major ones described above. Additional actions include improved agricultural practices that enhance carbon sequestration in the soil, and improved forestry practices that reduce emissions from deforestation. The actions described are doable, and they make climate stabilization manageable. It should be noted that the resulting planet, with clean air and water, is also more attractive for humans and other species.
Coal trains and reactions.
Recently a coal industry official tried to divert attention from the actions that are needed to solve the climate problem by criticizing a specific paragraph in my testimony opposing construction of a new coal-fired power plant that does not capture its CO2 emissions (LINK, pdf file). The paragraph in my testimony mischaracterized was:
Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the preindustrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.
This paragraph described thoughts that went through my head as I observed a remarkable string, mile after mile, of coal trains. My words did not resemble their reconstruction by the coal executive, and I certainly did not mean to trivialize suffering by the families who lost relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, it is clear from reactions that several people were hurt by the words. Three scientific colleagues, including one who lost several relatives in the Holocaust, have expressed strong disappointment about the words. A much larger number of people expressed support for the statement, but I think that more weight must be given to those who objected, as their concerns were heartfelt and understandable.
My apology and discussion.
I regret that my words caused pain to some readers. I hope that they will accept my apology for having caused discomfort, an apology that is heartfelt. Here, not in defense of my words, rather to make two further points, I provide the comments of two other people:
Jim, I thought that your equating the coal trains in Iowa with holocaust death trains an apt and reasonable analogy. It does not at all trivialize the suffering and deaths of European Jews but rather is a tribute to them. They will not all have died in vain if the horror and inhumanity of the holocaust can be used to wake up the world to the catastrophic consequences of continued pollution of the earth’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide. XXXXX
Jim: As a Jew, who is sensitive about misuse of references to the holocaust, I found no problem with your metaphor… nor to your response to the CEO…except for the reference to “creation”! YYYYY
My supposition was that most people would take the reference in the way indicated by the first of the last two comments. One merit of references and memorials to the Holocaust is as a reminder that we cannot allow such an event again, we cannot avert our eyes. As for reference to “creation,” my feeling about that topic developed during a meeting with evangelical leaders on a Georgia plantation. We found no reason for conflict between science and religion, but many reasons for working together. We all felt strongly about the need for stewardship, for passing on to our children and grandchildren the planet that we received, with its remarkable forms of life.
Summary and a possible alternative metaphor.
My concern is with trying to close the gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community, and what is known by those who need to know, the public and policy makers. I think that we still have a long way to go in making the danger clear, in part because of the inertia of the climate system and the danger of passing tipping points — points at which little or no additional forcing is needed to cause large, relatively rapid, undesirable effects. Our fellow species feel the danger in climate change. Animals are not on the run for the sake of exercise (LINK, pdf file). But they do not control what is happening. We do. We cannot avert our eyes and pretend that we do not understand the consequences of continued “business as usual.”
A related alternative metaphor, perhaps less objectionable while still making the most basic point, comes to mind in connection with an image of crashing of massive ice sheets fronts into the sea — an image of relevance to both climate tipping points and consequences (sea level rise). Can these crashing glaciers serve as a Krystal Nacht, and wake us up to the inhumane consequences of averting our eyes?
Alas, that metaphor probably would be greeted with the same reaction from the people who objected to the first. That reaction may have been spurred by the clever mischaracterization of the CEO, aiming to achieve just such a reaction. So far that seems to have been the story: the special interests have been cleverer than us, preventing the public from seeing the crisis that should be in view. It is hard for me to think of a different equally poignant example of the foreseeable consequence faced by fellow creatures on the planet. Suggestions are welcome.
Climate target is not radical enough - study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions
One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem.
In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.
Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.
The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm.
"If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.
At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point.
Hansen has long been a prominent figure in climate change science. He was one of the first to bring the crisis to the world's attention in testimony to Congress in the 1980s.
But his relationship with the Bush administration has been frosty. In 2005 he accused the White House and Nasa of trying to censor him. He has steadily revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one of the architects of a 450ppm target. But he told the Guardian: "I realise that was too high."
The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls "slow feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat.
As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass.
Hansen said that he now regards as "implausible" the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century."
The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar unrealistically high. With the US administration still acting as a drag on international efforts, climate campaigners are struggling even to get a 450ppm target to stick.
Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm.
Hansen's revised position will pile yet further pressure on Britain over plans to build a new generation of coal power stations. Last year he wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to block the first such power station; the Royal Society has made similar suggestions to the government.
In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.
Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.
The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm.
"If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.
At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point.
Hansen has long been a prominent figure in climate change science. He was one of the first to bring the crisis to the world's attention in testimony to Congress in the 1980s.
But his relationship with the Bush administration has been frosty. In 2005 he accused the White House and Nasa of trying to censor him. He has steadily revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one of the architects of a 450ppm target. But he told the Guardian: "I realise that was too high."
The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls "slow feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat.
As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass.
Hansen said that he now regards as "implausible" the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century."
The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar unrealistically high. With the US administration still acting as a drag on international efforts, climate campaigners are struggling even to get a 450ppm target to stick.
Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm.
Hansen's revised position will pile yet further pressure on Britain over plans to build a new generation of coal power stations. Last year he wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to block the first such power station; the Royal Society has made similar suggestions to the government.