[Vision2020] The Physics Of Climate Change: "Simple Question, Simple Answer… Not"

Sat Sep 20 15:46:27 PDT 2008

Dan et. al.

Thanks for your response to the question about climate change and human
contributions.  Many in government avoid Vision2020, I assume for some of
the same reasons politicians often avoid truly open ended question and
answer sessions from a audience that has not been "screened."  Your posts on
Vision2020 suggest you are not trying to avoid "open ended" engagement with
the public, even if it means facing criticism.

I find it puzzling that so many people, who have no specialized expertise
in climate science, feel compelled to doubt that climate change is
occurring, given the scientific evidence as outlined by the climate science
community.  Or if admitting that it is occurring, doubt that human impacts
on climate are significant and potentially destructive, considering the
decisive statements from the world's leading scientific organizations
issuing warnings regarding anthropogenic climate change.

There are of course economic and lifestyle motivations for people to reject
the science regarding human impacts on climate.   And many people simply do
not take the time to study the science involved, or have a disposition to
reject science.  Consider how many people in the US reject scientific
conclusions based on religious belief (age of the Earth, evolution).  But I
think there is something nebulous and incredible, in the minds of many, to
the claim that a gas coming out of their car's tail pipe or that coal fired
plant in Ohio could result in Wall Street being under water in 100-200
years, due to Greenland melting down.  If I did not have a respect for the
scientific community's conclusions on this issue, I'd be inclined to be very
skeptical.

I could quote numerous credible scientific organizations (American
Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association of
the Advancement of Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, etc.) that support the conclusion that the current
climate changes observed are occurring primarily do to human impacts, but
the following statement from 2007 signed by science academies from around
the world is compelling:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

"It is unquivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely
that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interferrance with
the atmosphere."
-------------------
Neither you (as far as I know) nor I have PhD.'s in a climate science
related field of study.  My views on climate change and human impacts are
informed by what is clearly the consensus view in the scientific community
among climate scientists, though I am well aware there are dissenting
scientists on this issue.  This is no surprise.  We can draw a parallel to
the hundreds of scientists who dissent regarding the science behind the
evolution of life on Earth.  This dissent regarding the scientific evidence
for evolution of life on Earth does not refute the overwhelming evidence for
evolution of life over billions of years and the consensus among biologists
on this subject.

The physics behind atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) altering
climate is well established.

Read the analysis of this issue from the American Institute of Physics:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
-------------------
And below is a September 8, 2008 (I try to offer recent contributions from
the scientific community on climate science) guest commentary on
Realclimate.org, also by Spencer R. Weart, from the American Institute of
Physics, which is titled as in the subject heading of this post:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#more-595
--------------------

That Earth's atmosphere has increased in CO2 level from about 280 ppm
pre-industrial, to now over 380 ppm, primarily due to human CO2 emissions
(100s of billions of tons of CO2 from human emissions), is also well
established:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

"The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to
have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The
concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the
terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we
produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 *faster* than the
ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase."
--------------------
The long list of scientific studies of what is termed "climate sensitivity,"
the change in Earth's global average atmospheric temperature due to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2, has overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that
dramatic average global temperature increases are predicted, about 3 degree
Centigrade, 5.4 degree Fahrenheit (this is an average, not meant to be an
exact prediction).  Thus if CO2 levels double to 560 ppm from the
pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, well within the range of possibility if
human CO2 emissions continue with business as usual, a 3 degree C. increase
in global average temperature is predicted (again, this is an average, not
an exact prediction), a dramatic shift in climate.  Natural climate feedback
mechanisms could cause even more dramatic temperature increases (methane
hydrate breakdown, carbon sink reversal in forests and the oceans).

The science on this issue is clear that dramatic climate change can happen
primarily due to human impacts.

Below consider a listing of the scientific studies (probably not including
all of the studies, but a compelling listing nonetheless) exploring "cimate
sensitivity," the temperature change resulting from a doubling of
atmospheric CO2:

http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
--------------
The IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report on temperature change during the
next century due to human impacts are given within a range of temperatures
based on different scenarios, some with devastating impacts on global
climate, some with less severe impacts.  We could bet on the less severe
impact scenarios, which are still serious, but this is playing Russian
Roulette with the Earth's climate system.  These risks are simply
unacceptable to assume.  Like those in the path of 2008's devastating
Hurricane Ike, who refused to evacuate, assuming the warnings were an
exaggeration, we are now facing credible scientific warnings regarding human
impacts on climate that it would be foolish to ignore in the assumption the
warnings are an exaggeration.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
-----------------
Dramatic action should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all
sources, fossil fuel use, land use practices, animal husbandry, etc.
Actions can be taken at all levels, from individuals and businesses, to
city, county, state and national and international action by government.  An
example of action at the local level by government could include economic
incentives to integrate low carbon alternative energy into new home
construction.  Despite the hydro power in the Northwest, Avista sources a
significant amount of electricity generation from CO2 emitting coal and
natural gas:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/054909.html

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/tax_incentives.cfm

>From URL immediately above:

"Tax incentives range from straightforward local property exemptions for
renewable energy systems, to special assessment of property with value-added
by a renewable energy source."
-----------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 8/21/08, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Do I think there's some climate change going on?  Maybe
>
>
>
> If it is, do I think it's "anthropogenic"?  Less likely that, more likely
> the sort of climate change that has been going on 'round the planet for
> the last 4 or 5 billion years.
>
>
>
> Do I think people should do their part to "prevent" climate change?  I
> don't think we'll "prevent" anything.  Change will happen.  But, I've got
> nothing against people doing their part for conservation, nor do I have
> anything against exploring alternative energy sources.  I don't think T.
> Boone Pickens is entirely altruistic in his campaign.  There are bucks to
> be made in his plan, and I think he'll make a few of 'em.
>
>
>
> Do I trust weather alerts?  To an extent.  Remember, we're talking
> "weather" and not "climate".  I have an idea that the NOAA bunch has a
> better idea about what's going to happen in the next couple hours than they
> do for the next week or month, not to mention the next 10, 20, 100 years.
> I've also spent a lot of time looking at radar maps just so I know what
> we'll have to deal with in my job at the Highway District.
>
>
>
> DC
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080920/8116d027/attachment-0001.html 