<div>Dan et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf">http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"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."</div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The physics behind atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) altering climate is well established.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Read the analysis of this issue from the American Institute of Physics:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>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 <font size="2">Spencer R. Weart, from the American Institute of Physics, which is titled as in the subject heading of this post:</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#more-595">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#more-595</a></div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO<sub>2</sub> <i>faster</i> than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase."</div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The science on this issue is clear that dramatic climate change can happen primarily due to human impacts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html">http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html</a></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf</a></div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/054909.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/054909.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/tax_incentives.cfm">http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/tax_incentives.cfm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From URL immediately above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"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."</div>
<div>-----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/21/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Dan Carscallen</b> <<a href="mailto:areaman@moscow.com">areaman@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="blue" link="blue">
<div>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon">Do I think there's some climate change going on?<span> </span>Maybe</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon">If it is, do I think it's "anthropogenic"?<span> </span>Less likely that, more likely the sort of climate change that has been going on '<span>round</span> the planet for the last 4 or 5 billion years.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon">Do I think people should do their part to "prevent" climate change?<span> </span>I don't think we'll "prevent" anything.<span> </span>Change will happen.<span> </span>But, I've got nothing against people doing their part for conservation, nor do I have anything against exploring alternative energy sources.<span> </span>I don't think T. Boone Pickens is entirely altruistic in his campaign.<span> </span>There are bucks to be made in his plan, and I think he'll make a few of '<span>em</span>.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon"> </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon">Do I trust weather alerts?<span> </span><span>To an extent.</span><span> </span>Remember, we're talking "weather" and not "climate".<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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. <span> </span></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon"> </span></font></p><span class="sg">
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon">DC</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Comic Sans MS" color="maroon" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: maroon"> </span></font></p></span></div></div></blockquote></div>