Tony, the spill is being covered, including by the NYT & WAPO. See HCR's NOTEs at the end of the Letter for news reports used for today's Letter.
The following are reports at the site of Keystone’s spill.
‘The Keystone pipeline spill in a creek running through rural pastureland in Washington County, Kansas, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of Kansas City, also was the biggest in the system’s history, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.’
‘Environmentalists said the heavier tar sands oil is not only more toxic than lighter crude but can sink in water instead of floating on top. Bill Caram, executive director of the advocacy Pipeline Safety Trust, said cleanup even sometimes can include scrubbing individual rocks in a creek bed.’
“This is going to be months, maybe even years before we get the full handle on this disaster and know the extent of the damage and get it all cleaned up,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club at the Kansas Statehouse.'
‘The spill raised questions for environmentalists and safety advocates about whether TC Energy should keep a federal government permit that has allowed the pressure inside parts of its Keystone system — including the stretch through Kansas — to exceed the typical maximum permitted levels. With Congress facing a potential debate on reauthorizing regulatory programs, the chair of a House subcommittee on pipeline safety took note of the spill Friday.’ (CNBC)
‘Past Keystone spills have led to outages that lasted about two weeks, but this outage could possibly be longer because it involves a body of water, said analysts at RBC Capital Markets in a note to investors.’
‘Chris Pannbacker said the pipeline runs through her family's farm. She and her husband drove north of their farmhouse and across a bridge over Mill Creek.’
“We looked at it from both sides, and it was black on both sides,” said Pannbacker, a reporter for the Marysville Advocate newspaper.'
Junior Roop, the sexton of a cemetery near the spill site, said people could smell the oil in town.“
"It was about like driving by a refinery,” he said. (abcNEWS)
Thank you, I didn’t express myself very well. What I meant to comment was that the reports I’d read in the news didn’t contain the deeper context that HCR provided. 😺
Thank you, Tony. One or two articles that I read did provide a worthwhile context. I agree that HCR's decision to make the pipeline spill the subject of the Letter given that life on the planet and the planet itself are endangered as result of the manner in which capitalism has been practiced, its pivotal connection to the fossil fuel sector, what has been ingrained human practice...It's our MAJOR!
I grew up in MI so I often find myself interested in all things MI. There is a pipe line that runs along the Mackanaw Bridge. There is a group I write letter for sometimes but I can not make to protests or committee meetings as I live in CA. The group is: oilandwaterdontmix.org There is a new proposed tunnel to run under the lakes, yikes. After the Kalamazoo River accident you would think one would question why ever endanger The Great Lakes.
Yes. Thanks for writing the letters and supporting Oil and Water Don't Mix!!! Enbridge has conned folks in the U.P. into believing that without Line 5 they will freeze to death when most of the natural gas in the pipeline goes from Canada, across the north part of the state and eventually back to Canada in the east. Two of my friends lives closest to where the pipe enters Lake Michigan at St. Ignace and have been very politically active. Scary stories they tell of anchor strilkes from big steamers. And yes. after the Kalamazoo spill you'd think we Michiganders would have more sayso, but Big Oil bought our seditionist U.S. Representative, Jack Bergman, his seat (he actually lives in Louisiana). We fought hard to get the fabulous Democrat, Dr. Bob Lorinser from Marquette, elected in his place, but couldn't compete with the lying campaign commercials Big Oil bought for him. Not giving up though! Thanks for your support!!
I disagree with the movie quote. It's not that they CAN'T seem to do anything about the problem of climate change. It's that they WON'T do anything to change things because making significant changes would hurt somebody's bottom line. It's always about the money.
No, "can't" is correct. The people who care only about money are making it impossible for those who want the changes to make them happen. We already know that more than half the population knows they want change, but just like the cigarette companies before them, the oil companies don't want to cut off their cash cows before they grab up the alternatives and force those prices up, too. Just saying.
I will read those links. Thanks. But I already know a thing or two about humans' addiction to fossil fuel. It is not hard to understand, but there are many moving parts. Humans are no different than any other species in that we are opportunistic, and will do things (or not do other things) that benefit us directly. That along with genetic variation is how evolution works. We have reasoning brains that have over geologic time taken the place of instincts much more so than other species, but those brains remain hard wired to place importance on basic near term benefit. What we are not hard wired for is very long term benefit (like doing what is necessary to save our climate). It takes another kind of reasoning to accomplish that - something we need much more of. Add in greed, willful ignorance, lazy intellect (or just plain anti-intellectualism) which are stoked by those greedy leaders who wish to maximize power, and unfortunately are characteristics all too common in the human psyche, and the voices of reason from our scientific community get drowned out. It does not help that haphazard weather patterns can drown out the gradual climate trends that our scientists see, but most average people do not yet see. It also doesn't help that the phenomenon of climate change from increases in CO2 is such that we can go beyond the point of no return without realizing it, and once realized, mitigation cannot immediately reverse the effects. One must place some trust in warnings from science that this is true, for it is not taking place before our eyes (at least not obviously). Too many do not have that trust, especially when egged on by the denialist community (which includes BTW the entirety of the Republican Party). And it also is extremely unhelpful that our faith community has largely failed to place any importance on the issue - perhaps believing that God would never do that to us, or worse that climate change is nothing but what has been prophesized in Revelations or some other prediction of humankind's doom, and nothing can or should be done about it. And BTW - humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere.
Fossil fuels are like a great big present to humanity. Oil and coal are energy packets ripe for the taking. Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways! That alone is a scary thought, unless you are of the belief that God has provided this to us. Big Oil has made alot of great things happen, and has raised the standard of living for millions of people. For quite a while now. Nobody, including climate activists, are happy to go backwards when it comes to those benefits. The difference is, some people recognize the long term costs of continuing on with fossil fuel burning (and they are very scary), and some other people either don't care because they will be dead before the worst of it comes, or just cannot fathom giving up some of the benefits of a fossil fuel burning society (not even a little) and welcome the words of denial and spin that are everywhere, spewed out by those who's interests get damaged by climate action.
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
Read the links, thank you. Here is what I will concede. Cloud cover is a large player when it comes to predicting global warming. That is well known. And that cloud simulations in today's climate models might be the most underdeveloped component of those models. The science is under intense development. That is all I'll concede.
Climate scientists and scientists in related fields are hard at work trying to better pin down all the various effects that cloud cover causes. It's complicated, not yet a for-sure thing whether we are seeing a net negative feedback loop, or a positive one, or if it's all just about neutral. It's all over my head; all I can do is read the abstracts and news articles. One thing worthy of notice though - as more evidence comes in, it just is not looking good for those who insist that cloud cover is saving the day so to speak. The evidence, and/or latest model results are not presenting any strong argument for a negative feedback loop - like we all would hope for. That's an understatement. Are you hanging your hat on cloud cover?
At this point, unlike what you seem to suspect, climate science is saying that seriously bad global warming is very likely in the process of occurring (with a xxx% chance of being correct - where "xxx%" is a high number). And every year, as the science continues to develop, that number is getting larger. There are opinions to the contrary among scientists, but they are very small compared to a very large consensus. I just don't see how you could argue against that point. The alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head, but for some reason are not. And given the current scientific consensus, who could argue that humankind should be taking a path that reflects the odds as currently understood. To be better safe than sorry. How certain must we be? Especially with so little to lose. Adding more expense to already subsidized fossil fuels is not going to have a catastrophic effect, even on the world's poor. Won't help, but the effects can be mitigated.
Meanwhile, the real world is making statements of its own. The effects of rapid climate change are all around us - the "thousand year" floods happening with regularity now, the historic increases in forest fires, the record temp highs that drown out the record lows, island nations watching their territories slowly but surely sink beneath the waves, shore engineering world wide hard at work planning for further invasion of sea water, etc etc.
I did find it interesting that you bring up the coming ice age (if it comes - I am not sure that man-made global warming will not cause trigger point events that curtail its coming....). A great hypothetical question - what would human civilization do about ice-age induced climate change. But I do not think a comparison to the situation today is valid. What I do not see in your arguments is geological time versus time as measured in human civilization terms. As if they are comparable. They are not. The cycle of ice ages, although rapid in comparison to some other planetary variations, is still measured in terms of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the warming we see from fossil fuel burning is measured in centuries, and lately even decades. Human society - and I might add, the world's ecosystems - will adapt to a coming ice age, that comes so gradually that the adaptations are barely noticeable. Nature has always done that with very few exceptions. Few will worry much about that. But human-caused global warming? That is occurring so rapidly that earth's ecosystems are not able to keep up with it. From a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide. We do not even know all that will be upset, although we are beginning to get an idea as we study extinctions, pandemics, unprecedented weather events, and other effects that are beginning to happen.
So just what do you have against an approach that recognizes the danger potential? Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there. Also, do I detect some suspicion on your part that there is a conspiracy of sorts among all the relevant branches of earth sciences to hide the "truth" from us? You made a couple of statements to that effect. Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants? Is there some covered up effort to suppress a large and legitimate body of science that is at odds with the consensus? Is science putting their foot on the scales, working towards a new world order? I'm sorry to insult your intelligence. But at this point, views such as yours need a ton of good evidence to be considered legitimate. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
I can argue several of the points you make, but it seems your primary desire is to ask what motivates me. I love the scientific pursuit first and foremost.
Of all your guesses, the following comes the closest to the problem I see with not only climate science, but many other branches of the field.
"Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants?"
I and many scientists see a creeping desire on the part of some to abduct science on behalf of certain special interests. It does not have to be a global conspiracy. It is simply an ingrained practice to throw into any innocuous study of historical climate a reference to how it must prove that the so called "consensus" is correct. Essentially, you must genuflect to the "consensus" if you wish to be published or receive grants.
Climatology is a ripe field for this idea of a horse following a cart. The field has very little practical value to the world without a climate crisis. One way it can gain practical value is to have a crisis. That crisis is what draws so much funding to climatology, and sadly, away from other fields which have much more practical uses.
Another inquiry of yours:
"Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there."
I am certain that CO2 absorbs infrared coming from the ground, and that water vapor also does so, to a much greater degree. I am also aware that it is less mentioned in laymen's literature that these gases also radiate infrared. The fact that the layman is being instructed with half truth causes suspicion in my mind. The other fact that convection carries warm air aloft where it radiates IR into space primarily is also not addressed in the literature aimed at the layman. All they hear is that there is an ever thickening blanket of CO2 and we will soon be boiling hot. This is hyperbole and it once again arouses my suspicion that the motive is not the pursuit of science, but the pursuit of captive minds.
I am certain that cities tend to be as much as 10 degrees F warmer than rural lands due to the stifling of winds and the volume of dark pavement there. This actually has affected rural microclimates by promoting convection over cities and robbing rural lands of much needed rainfall. That is actual human caused climate change. It's not a global danger, it is a local nuisance though.
I am certain that temperatures at the poles have warmed significantly more than they have in other regions. Most of the global temperature rise measured at the end of the 20th century was because of higher temperatures at the poles being averaged into the balance of the world. Non-polar regions hardly warmed at all on average. It's understandable that the North Pole in particular would register as much warmer than before. The 20,000 year recession of the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere is running out of ice to melt at the pole. In mid summer there was hardly any ice left. Greenland still had ice, but the amount of sea ice was as near to none as we have ever witnessed. Greenland will take at least 1,000 years to melt at the current rate. By then, we may be back into the next glacial advance, or not. If not, sea levels will continue to rise and we will have to adapt. I like to joke that if a barnacle can outrace sea level rise, then so can humans.
I am also certain that additional CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which we add through burning anything, do cause it to absorb additional IR. What I do not agree with is that this will lead to a "tipping point" from which earth will never recover. Nothing of the kind has ever been observed in nature. Convection being a feedback loop which responds to additional heat and radiates it will prevent it. Even objects without water vapor radiate more when heated, and eventually settle back to equilibrium. None ever reach a runaway heating. It's basically impossible on earth because the warming effect of additional CO2 is reduced logarithmically, not linearly.
Your comment:
"from a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide."
This is the kind of hyperbole we get from ignorant mainstream media, and the layman just eats it up. It's total drama. If it were like a meteor strike we would probably be thrust back into the 16th century or worse. We have seen Huge volcanic eruptions that blacked out the sky and emitted megatons of CO2 and other gases. They have a short term effect and then the soot and gases are absorbed into the ground or ocean and the planet swiftly returns to an equilibrium. The planet is not a delicate flower. It is a huge fluid body of molten rock with a crust of slag and water floating on the surface. Laymen have real trouble visualizing the scale of Earth in relation to our impacts upon it. Al Gore took advantage of that weakness and he rests secure in his home today, near sea level. Physically secure perhaps, but deep down he knows he is a con artist.
The terms "The Science", "Trust the Science" or "I am the Science" are abhorrent to any real scientist. A real scientist would never utter such words. But this is what the layman is subjected to on a daily basis from a certain faction of the science community and media outlets sponsored by the industries which promote and fund the distortion of science for the purpose of political action favorable to such industries.
Bottom line is that many a "consensus" in science has been overturned in the past, and this one is lacking in honesty as outlined above. Once science returns to its roots as the search for true understanding of nature the "consensus" will quickly and catastophically collapse. Hopefully sooner than later.
If there are questions in your above comment that I have not addressed, please ask again. I am happy to offer my opinion.
Well I wish Dr. Mann could read your comments and respond. He seems to be the voice of climate science somewhat similar to some other scientists who have come out of their labs to address the public and try to make them understand that which is very complex. His responses would be interesting to say the least. And BTW - Sagan when he was alive, and Tyson today (good examples of scientists comfortable speaking in public), are/were firmly on board with the consensus, for what it's worth. I do not think they have anything to hide.
Much of what you argue here can be found in one form or another on climate denial websites, and therefore have been addressed. None seem to have stuck to the wall so far. But then, if corruption is as rife in the science as you appear to believe, then they wouldn't would they? So we are at a bit of a dead end. Except to say this - dig down deep enough, and you will find that the vast majority of contrarian arguments being put forward originate from persons funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil. If you were in a jury of your peers, and heard arguments from career climatologists, and from scientists working for Exxon or the like, who would you tend to believe?
I still maintain that, at the very least, the stakes are so potentially serious that the prudent path must be taken. Now. The cost can be handled, and sustainable energy for a civilization is one of the ultimate civilized things to do.
I'm going to end it here; thanks for listening anyway. We are hijacking the LFAA comment section with things most readers are not that into.
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
"You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?" Wait wait!! I know (holds up hand, waving frantically). As I stated earlier, I place my confidence and trust in the the world scientific community, and let the chips fall where they may. I like those odds. Over the years since science has established itself- it has a great record of explaining the natural world as it truly is. And has a great system for correcting things it got wrong. Compared to any other human-created group endeavour, including the world's religions, it is relatively corruption free and free of agendas. As opposed to - say - the scientists working for Exxon-Mobil. Or the National Baptist Convention.
Your treatise on black body radiation, and on the various intricacies of our atmosphere and its similarities (and not) to a "blanket" is interesting and seemingly well researched. However, the message loud and clear is that today's climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. That they are outright wrong, or at least that there is too much uncertainty in their fields to warrant any action or policy. That I reject out of hand, as should everyone. I believe any climate scientist worth his/her salt could take your arguments and summarily and politely refute them in ways I can only wish I could understand.
"Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation." Are you suggesting that the well known Milankovitch cycle is not a cause of the ice age cycles the earth has gone through for the last few hundred thousand years? I thought that was pretty settled. What I believe you are suggesting is that since this ice age is so poorly understood, then other climate effects are equally poorly understood. Well no - I believe the ice age cycles are better understood than you suggest.
As for living well today while we an still do it - good god man. That is what this is all about. We are in danger of ruining it all in the near term - not 10000 years from now.
Thank you for the link, BK...the struggle for balance in our moral accountability on and with this planet is a constant but necessary one.
Those of us who ignore it must MUST learn to step back from capitalism's bulldozers and take in the gifts of beauty and nature's home before it is totally destroyed 🌿
Totally agree - although that often is “preaching to the choir”. These letters should be syndicated to every major city newspaper particularly in the red states and required reading for Congress. But, education is clearly not in the best interest of the republicans! I remember when Paul Ryan spoke those words and it was abundantly clear the republicans had and have a total lack of understanding of climate change, the rights of Indigenous people, economic realities (alternative energy sources are huge job creators). Their sole end game is power with the ugliest of overtones and consequences.
Perhaps naive of me, but I have often wondered why these wonderful letters and rich commentary are not distributed in
frequent syndicated columns in the major news outlets. Seems to me that this historian would be a terrific author/advisor to some contemporary version of "The Fireside Chats".
I used to write many letters to the editor every day when I was engaged in activism about 10 years ago. What I've long suspected is that letters like mine that did not reflect the newspaper's editorial policies weren't published.
My prolific Op-Ed letter writing in the 1980s & '90s frequently got published in the Gainesville Sun FL, Miami News (while it lasted) & Miami Herald (less frequently in that stodgy rag). Of course the free weeklies and college aimed papers were my forte, Preaching to the Choir on local issues.
And it won’t be. Mary Pipher( author) wrote a fabulous book “The Green Boat” . This is a description of the fight Nebraska organized to keep TC pipeline out of their state in order to protect the “Sandhills “ against major pollution of their ground water.
An important read for those who understand that “big oil” doesn’t care about the damage done by their industry.
As Mary Pipher points out... this will only change with grassroots organizing. Big industry needs to be stood up to.
A while ago I lived in the NW. Protestors there managed a colorful and very dramatic demonstration against Shell Oil which was attempting to open digging in the Arctic circle. The demonstrators lower themselves and long banners from a high bridge so that they dangled just above the rigs setting sail for Alaska. Shell quit.
Yes, Tony, it should be on the front page and the entire front page of the NYT & WAPO, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they 'ain't a gonna do it.' They are both corporate owned media.
Only an astute professional historian like HCR could pull all of this together, and it should be on the front pages of the NYT & WAPO! 🙏
And especially the Wall Street Journal!
With a skew that only Rupert could provide
Tony, the spill is being covered, including by the NYT & WAPO. See HCR's NOTEs at the end of the Letter for news reports used for today's Letter.
The following are reports at the site of Keystone’s spill.
‘The Keystone pipeline spill in a creek running through rural pastureland in Washington County, Kansas, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of Kansas City, also was the biggest in the system’s history, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data.’
‘Environmentalists said the heavier tar sands oil is not only more toxic than lighter crude but can sink in water instead of floating on top. Bill Caram, executive director of the advocacy Pipeline Safety Trust, said cleanup even sometimes can include scrubbing individual rocks in a creek bed.’
“This is going to be months, maybe even years before we get the full handle on this disaster and know the extent of the damage and get it all cleaned up,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club at the Kansas Statehouse.'
‘The spill raised questions for environmentalists and safety advocates about whether TC Energy should keep a federal government permit that has allowed the pressure inside parts of its Keystone system — including the stretch through Kansas — to exceed the typical maximum permitted levels. With Congress facing a potential debate on reauthorizing regulatory programs, the chair of a House subcommittee on pipeline safety took note of the spill Friday.’ (CNBC)
‘Past Keystone spills have led to outages that lasted about two weeks, but this outage could possibly be longer because it involves a body of water, said analysts at RBC Capital Markets in a note to investors.’
‘Chris Pannbacker said the pipeline runs through her family's farm. She and her husband drove north of their farmhouse and across a bridge over Mill Creek.’
“We looked at it from both sides, and it was black on both sides,” said Pannbacker, a reporter for the Marysville Advocate newspaper.'
Junior Roop, the sexton of a cemetery near the spill site, said people could smell the oil in town.“
"It was about like driving by a refinery,” he said. (abcNEWS)
Thank you, I didn’t express myself very well. What I meant to comment was that the reports I’d read in the news didn’t contain the deeper context that HCR provided. 😺
Thank you, Tony. One or two articles that I read did provide a worthwhile context. I agree that HCR's decision to make the pipeline spill the subject of the Letter given that life on the planet and the planet itself are endangered as result of the manner in which capitalism has been practiced, its pivotal connection to the fossil fuel sector, what has been ingrained human practice...It's our MAJOR!
😧😢🥺
😡
I grew up in MI so I often find myself interested in all things MI. There is a pipe line that runs along the Mackanaw Bridge. There is a group I write letter for sometimes but I can not make to protests or committee meetings as I live in CA. The group is: oilandwaterdontmix.org There is a new proposed tunnel to run under the lakes, yikes. After the Kalamazoo River accident you would think one would question why ever endanger The Great Lakes.
Yes. Thanks for writing the letters and supporting Oil and Water Don't Mix!!! Enbridge has conned folks in the U.P. into believing that without Line 5 they will freeze to death when most of the natural gas in the pipeline goes from Canada, across the north part of the state and eventually back to Canada in the east. Two of my friends lives closest to where the pipe enters Lake Michigan at St. Ignace and have been very politically active. Scary stories they tell of anchor strilkes from big steamers. And yes. after the Kalamazoo spill you'd think we Michiganders would have more sayso, but Big Oil bought our seditionist U.S. Representative, Jack Bergman, his seat (he actually lives in Louisiana). We fought hard to get the fabulous Democrat, Dr. Bob Lorinser from Marquette, elected in his place, but couldn't compete with the lying campaign commercials Big Oil bought for him. Not giving up though! Thanks for your support!!
I saw it on CBS News last nite, with an aerial view of the destroyed creek full of crude oil.
Just another Morlock attack on the Eloi in our dystopian present.
Thanks, Fern. I appreciate the recap from those sources.
Thank you, Mary.
I disagree with the movie quote. It's not that they CAN'T seem to do anything about the problem of climate change. It's that they WON'T do anything to change things because making significant changes would hurt somebody's bottom line. It's always about the money.
No, "can't" is correct. The people who care only about money are making it impossible for those who want the changes to make them happen. We already know that more than half the population knows they want change, but just like the cigarette companies before them, the oil companies don't want to cut off their cash cows before they grab up the alternatives and force those prices up, too. Just saying.
I will read those links. Thanks. But I already know a thing or two about humans' addiction to fossil fuel. It is not hard to understand, but there are many moving parts. Humans are no different than any other species in that we are opportunistic, and will do things (or not do other things) that benefit us directly. That along with genetic variation is how evolution works. We have reasoning brains that have over geologic time taken the place of instincts much more so than other species, but those brains remain hard wired to place importance on basic near term benefit. What we are not hard wired for is very long term benefit (like doing what is necessary to save our climate). It takes another kind of reasoning to accomplish that - something we need much more of. Add in greed, willful ignorance, lazy intellect (or just plain anti-intellectualism) which are stoked by those greedy leaders who wish to maximize power, and unfortunately are characteristics all too common in the human psyche, and the voices of reason from our scientific community get drowned out. It does not help that haphazard weather patterns can drown out the gradual climate trends that our scientists see, but most average people do not yet see. It also doesn't help that the phenomenon of climate change from increases in CO2 is such that we can go beyond the point of no return without realizing it, and once realized, mitigation cannot immediately reverse the effects. One must place some trust in warnings from science that this is true, for it is not taking place before our eyes (at least not obviously). Too many do not have that trust, especially when egged on by the denialist community (which includes BTW the entirety of the Republican Party). And it also is extremely unhelpful that our faith community has largely failed to place any importance on the issue - perhaps believing that God would never do that to us, or worse that climate change is nothing but what has been prophesized in Revelations or some other prediction of humankind's doom, and nothing can or should be done about it. And BTW - humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere.
Fossil fuels are like a great big present to humanity. Oil and coal are energy packets ripe for the taking. Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways! That alone is a scary thought, unless you are of the belief that God has provided this to us. Big Oil has made alot of great things happen, and has raised the standard of living for millions of people. For quite a while now. Nobody, including climate activists, are happy to go backwards when it comes to those benefits. The difference is, some people recognize the long term costs of continuing on with fossil fuel burning (and they are very scary), and some other people either don't care because they will be dead before the worst of it comes, or just cannot fathom giving up some of the benefits of a fossil fuel burning society (not even a little) and welcome the words of denial and spin that are everywhere, spewed out by those who's interests get damaged by climate action.
Quoting James:
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-without-clouds-hardly-clear-climate-scientists-say
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018MS001409
Read the links, thank you. Here is what I will concede. Cloud cover is a large player when it comes to predicting global warming. That is well known. And that cloud simulations in today's climate models might be the most underdeveloped component of those models. The science is under intense development. That is all I'll concede.
Climate scientists and scientists in related fields are hard at work trying to better pin down all the various effects that cloud cover causes. It's complicated, not yet a for-sure thing whether we are seeing a net negative feedback loop, or a positive one, or if it's all just about neutral. It's all over my head; all I can do is read the abstracts and news articles. One thing worthy of notice though - as more evidence comes in, it just is not looking good for those who insist that cloud cover is saving the day so to speak. The evidence, and/or latest model results are not presenting any strong argument for a negative feedback loop - like we all would hope for. That's an understatement. Are you hanging your hat on cloud cover?
At this point, unlike what you seem to suspect, climate science is saying that seriously bad global warming is very likely in the process of occurring (with a xxx% chance of being correct - where "xxx%" is a high number). And every year, as the science continues to develop, that number is getting larger. There are opinions to the contrary among scientists, but they are very small compared to a very large consensus. I just don't see how you could argue against that point. The alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head, but for some reason are not. And given the current scientific consensus, who could argue that humankind should be taking a path that reflects the odds as currently understood. To be better safe than sorry. How certain must we be? Especially with so little to lose. Adding more expense to already subsidized fossil fuels is not going to have a catastrophic effect, even on the world's poor. Won't help, but the effects can be mitigated.
Meanwhile, the real world is making statements of its own. The effects of rapid climate change are all around us - the "thousand year" floods happening with regularity now, the historic increases in forest fires, the record temp highs that drown out the record lows, island nations watching their territories slowly but surely sink beneath the waves, shore engineering world wide hard at work planning for further invasion of sea water, etc etc.
I did find it interesting that you bring up the coming ice age (if it comes - I am not sure that man-made global warming will not cause trigger point events that curtail its coming....). A great hypothetical question - what would human civilization do about ice-age induced climate change. But I do not think a comparison to the situation today is valid. What I do not see in your arguments is geological time versus time as measured in human civilization terms. As if they are comparable. They are not. The cycle of ice ages, although rapid in comparison to some other planetary variations, is still measured in terms of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the warming we see from fossil fuel burning is measured in centuries, and lately even decades. Human society - and I might add, the world's ecosystems - will adapt to a coming ice age, that comes so gradually that the adaptations are barely noticeable. Nature has always done that with very few exceptions. Few will worry much about that. But human-caused global warming? That is occurring so rapidly that earth's ecosystems are not able to keep up with it. From a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide. We do not even know all that will be upset, although we are beginning to get an idea as we study extinctions, pandemics, unprecedented weather events, and other effects that are beginning to happen.
So just what do you have against an approach that recognizes the danger potential? Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there. Also, do I detect some suspicion on your part that there is a conspiracy of sorts among all the relevant branches of earth sciences to hide the "truth" from us? You made a couple of statements to that effect. Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants? Is there some covered up effort to suppress a large and legitimate body of science that is at odds with the consensus? Is science putting their foot on the scales, working towards a new world order? I'm sorry to insult your intelligence. But at this point, views such as yours need a ton of good evidence to be considered legitimate. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
I can argue several of the points you make, but it seems your primary desire is to ask what motivates me. I love the scientific pursuit first and foremost.
Of all your guesses, the following comes the closest to the problem I see with not only climate science, but many other branches of the field.
"Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants?"
I and many scientists see a creeping desire on the part of some to abduct science on behalf of certain special interests. It does not have to be a global conspiracy. It is simply an ingrained practice to throw into any innocuous study of historical climate a reference to how it must prove that the so called "consensus" is correct. Essentially, you must genuflect to the "consensus" if you wish to be published or receive grants.
Climatology is a ripe field for this idea of a horse following a cart. The field has very little practical value to the world without a climate crisis. One way it can gain practical value is to have a crisis. That crisis is what draws so much funding to climatology, and sadly, away from other fields which have much more practical uses.
Another inquiry of yours:
"Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there."
I am certain that CO2 absorbs infrared coming from the ground, and that water vapor also does so, to a much greater degree. I am also aware that it is less mentioned in laymen's literature that these gases also radiate infrared. The fact that the layman is being instructed with half truth causes suspicion in my mind. The other fact that convection carries warm air aloft where it radiates IR into space primarily is also not addressed in the literature aimed at the layman. All they hear is that there is an ever thickening blanket of CO2 and we will soon be boiling hot. This is hyperbole and it once again arouses my suspicion that the motive is not the pursuit of science, but the pursuit of captive minds.
I am certain that cities tend to be as much as 10 degrees F warmer than rural lands due to the stifling of winds and the volume of dark pavement there. This actually has affected rural microclimates by promoting convection over cities and robbing rural lands of much needed rainfall. That is actual human caused climate change. It's not a global danger, it is a local nuisance though.
I am certain that temperatures at the poles have warmed significantly more than they have in other regions. Most of the global temperature rise measured at the end of the 20th century was because of higher temperatures at the poles being averaged into the balance of the world. Non-polar regions hardly warmed at all on average. It's understandable that the North Pole in particular would register as much warmer than before. The 20,000 year recession of the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere is running out of ice to melt at the pole. In mid summer there was hardly any ice left. Greenland still had ice, but the amount of sea ice was as near to none as we have ever witnessed. Greenland will take at least 1,000 years to melt at the current rate. By then, we may be back into the next glacial advance, or not. If not, sea levels will continue to rise and we will have to adapt. I like to joke that if a barnacle can outrace sea level rise, then so can humans.
I am also certain that additional CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which we add through burning anything, do cause it to absorb additional IR. What I do not agree with is that this will lead to a "tipping point" from which earth will never recover. Nothing of the kind has ever been observed in nature. Convection being a feedback loop which responds to additional heat and radiates it will prevent it. Even objects without water vapor radiate more when heated, and eventually settle back to equilibrium. None ever reach a runaway heating. It's basically impossible on earth because the warming effect of additional CO2 is reduced logarithmically, not linearly.
Your comment:
"from a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide."
This is the kind of hyperbole we get from ignorant mainstream media, and the layman just eats it up. It's total drama. If it were like a meteor strike we would probably be thrust back into the 16th century or worse. We have seen Huge volcanic eruptions that blacked out the sky and emitted megatons of CO2 and other gases. They have a short term effect and then the soot and gases are absorbed into the ground or ocean and the planet swiftly returns to an equilibrium. The planet is not a delicate flower. It is a huge fluid body of molten rock with a crust of slag and water floating on the surface. Laymen have real trouble visualizing the scale of Earth in relation to our impacts upon it. Al Gore took advantage of that weakness and he rests secure in his home today, near sea level. Physically secure perhaps, but deep down he knows he is a con artist.
The terms "The Science", "Trust the Science" or "I am the Science" are abhorrent to any real scientist. A real scientist would never utter such words. But this is what the layman is subjected to on a daily basis from a certain faction of the science community and media outlets sponsored by the industries which promote and fund the distortion of science for the purpose of political action favorable to such industries.
Bottom line is that many a "consensus" in science has been overturned in the past, and this one is lacking in honesty as outlined above. Once science returns to its roots as the search for true understanding of nature the "consensus" will quickly and catastophically collapse. Hopefully sooner than later.
If there are questions in your above comment that I have not addressed, please ask again. I am happy to offer my opinion.
Thank you for your interest.
Well I wish Dr. Mann could read your comments and respond. He seems to be the voice of climate science somewhat similar to some other scientists who have come out of their labs to address the public and try to make them understand that which is very complex. His responses would be interesting to say the least. And BTW - Sagan when he was alive, and Tyson today (good examples of scientists comfortable speaking in public), are/were firmly on board with the consensus, for what it's worth. I do not think they have anything to hide.
Much of what you argue here can be found in one form or another on climate denial websites, and therefore have been addressed. None seem to have stuck to the wall so far. But then, if corruption is as rife in the science as you appear to believe, then they wouldn't would they? So we are at a bit of a dead end. Except to say this - dig down deep enough, and you will find that the vast majority of contrarian arguments being put forward originate from persons funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil. If you were in a jury of your peers, and heard arguments from career climatologists, and from scientists working for Exxon or the like, who would you tend to believe?
I still maintain that, at the very least, the stakes are so potentially serious that the prudent path must be taken. Now. The cost can be handled, and sustainable energy for a civilization is one of the ultimate civilized things to do.
I'm going to end it here; thanks for listening anyway. We are hijacking the LFAA comment section with things most readers are not that into.
Quoting James:
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
"You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?" Wait wait!! I know (holds up hand, waving frantically). As I stated earlier, I place my confidence and trust in the the world scientific community, and let the chips fall where they may. I like those odds. Over the years since science has established itself- it has a great record of explaining the natural world as it truly is. And has a great system for correcting things it got wrong. Compared to any other human-created group endeavour, including the world's religions, it is relatively corruption free and free of agendas. As opposed to - say - the scientists working for Exxon-Mobil. Or the National Baptist Convention.
Your treatise on black body radiation, and on the various intricacies of our atmosphere and its similarities (and not) to a "blanket" is interesting and seemingly well researched. However, the message loud and clear is that today's climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. That they are outright wrong, or at least that there is too much uncertainty in their fields to warrant any action or policy. That I reject out of hand, as should everyone. I believe any climate scientist worth his/her salt could take your arguments and summarily and politely refute them in ways I can only wish I could understand.
"Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation." Are you suggesting that the well known Milankovitch cycle is not a cause of the ice age cycles the earth has gone through for the last few hundred thousand years? I thought that was pretty settled. What I believe you are suggesting is that since this ice age is so poorly understood, then other climate effects are equally poorly understood. Well no - I believe the ice age cycles are better understood than you suggest.
As for living well today while we an still do it - good god man. That is what this is all about. We are in danger of ruining it all in the near term - not 10000 years from now.
Thank you for the link, BK...the struggle for balance in our moral accountability on and with this planet is a constant but necessary one.
Those of us who ignore it must MUST learn to step back from capitalism's bulldozers and take in the gifts of beauty and nature's home before it is totally destroyed 🌿
It's remarkable. She seems to have 100 eyes.
Totally agree - although that often is “preaching to the choir”. These letters should be syndicated to every major city newspaper particularly in the red states and required reading for Congress. But, education is clearly not in the best interest of the republicans! I remember when Paul Ryan spoke those words and it was abundantly clear the republicans had and have a total lack of understanding of climate change, the rights of Indigenous people, economic realities (alternative energy sources are huge job creators). Their sole end game is power with the ugliest of overtones and consequences.
Perhaps naive of me, but I have often wondered why these wonderful letters and rich commentary are not distributed in
frequent syndicated columns in the major news outlets. Seems to me that this historian would be a terrific author/advisor to some contemporary version of "The Fireside Chats".
I used to write many letters to the editor every day when I was engaged in activism about 10 years ago. What I've long suspected is that letters like mine that did not reflect the newspaper's editorial policies weren't published.
My prolific Op-Ed letter writing in the 1980s & '90s frequently got published in the Gainesville Sun FL, Miami News (while it lasted) & Miami Herald (less frequently in that stodgy rag). Of course the free weeklies and college aimed papers were my forte, Preaching to the Choir on local issues.
And it won’t be. Mary Pipher( author) wrote a fabulous book “The Green Boat” . This is a description of the fight Nebraska organized to keep TC pipeline out of their state in order to protect the “Sandhills “ against major pollution of their ground water.
An important read for those who understand that “big oil” doesn’t care about the damage done by their industry.
As Mary Pipher points out... this will only change with grassroots organizing. Big industry needs to be stood up to.
A while ago I lived in the NW. Protestors there managed a colorful and very dramatic demonstration against Shell Oil which was attempting to open digging in the Arctic circle. The demonstrators lower themselves and long banners from a high bridge so that they dangled just above the rigs setting sail for Alaska. Shell quit.
Yes, Tony, it should be on the front page and the entire front page of the NYT & WAPO, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they 'ain't a gonna do it.' They are both corporate owned media.
Another barnburner of a closing from Professor Richardson. What an astute historian.
🗽
Amen to Heather! Obviously, hell will freeze over before that last clause happens.
Amen🌿