<div>Thanks for the invitation to offer "insight" regarding sea level rise due to anthropogenic climate change, the credibility of NASA climate scientist James Hansen, or the reliability or theory of knowledge regarding scientific predictions, for example when you wrote</div>
<div>"All scientific theories are probabilistic, and therefore opinions -- opinions hopefully based on probabilities based on careful research and reasoning."</div><div> </div><div>I would not call the scientific theory, for example, indicating that our sun is primarily driven by hydrogen fusion an "opinion," as you put it... maybe we just understand this word differently. It is such a well established scientific fact, that it is not opinion, anymore than the force of gravity is an "opinion." To say that super string theory is the final complete theory of physics would be an opinion, given it has not been empirically demonstrated. Anyway, this sort of debate could go on forever...</div>
<div> </div><div>
I think anthropogenic climate change is also very well established science, though there remain many variables and probabilities that climate scientists continue to investigate and debate. For example, the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model has been refining and developing a predictive model for anthropogenic climate change, which they state is "unique," and their results from 2009 in the American Meteorological Society's<em> Journal of Climate</em>,
indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius
by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees, with what is sometimes called a business as usual scenario regarding burning of fossil fuels etc. </div><div><a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm</a> </div><div> </div><div>Often criticism of climate science by deniers of this serious problem focus on the IPCC, or Hansen, or other more publicly well known lightning rod figures or institutions in this discussion. But there are numerous independent credible scientific organizations that are all coming to roughly the same conclusion: anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem meriting serious action, with high probabilities of catastrophic impacts, as the MIT study referenced above concludes.</div>
<div> </div><div>As far as Hansen, sea level rise from anthropogenic climate change, and anthropogenic climate change impacts in general, I have bombarded this list with a flood of scientific studies on this issue. For example, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "<font>Global sea level linked to global temperature" <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full</a> From the abstract: "For future global temperature
scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a
sea-level
rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period
1990–2100." 190 cm is about six feet of sea level rise by 2100. </font></div>
<div> </div><div>Several times I posted the following analysis by U of C climate scientist Pierrehumbert (His bio: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierrehumbert/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierrehumbert/</a> ), that addresses Hansen's well known statement about the development of the Canadian Tar Sands being "game over" for stopping climate change, the wording in the subject heading in this thread. </div>
<div> </div><div>If I understand Pierrehumbert correctly, he implies Hansen's statement to be hyperbolic, though if you read his analysis, he presents science indicating anthropogenic climate change is a very long term and serious problem. Pierrehumbert notes that "coal is the 800 giga tonne gorilla at the carbon party" and thus the largest threat to inducing climate change. If I read correctly, he does not include methane hydrates as a fossil fuel that could contribute to climate change, but astonishingly enough, methane hydrates contain more carbon than any traditional fossil fuel, coal, oil or natural gas, and are under development: [Vision2020] 5/2/2012: U.S./Japan Completes Trial of Methane Hydrate Production <a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2012-May/082787.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2012-May/082787.html</a> . If humanity can develop technology to exploit methane hydrates on a massive scale, without other mitigating factors, as we continue burning oil and coal... You do the numbers for atmospheric CO2 rise!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I omitted the graphs from the following pasted in version of this analysis:</div><div> </div>
<div> <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/</a></div><h3>Keystone XL: Game over?</h3>
<div>Filed under: <ul>
<li><a title="View all posts in Carbon cycle" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/carbon-cycle/" rel="category tag" target="_blank">Carbon cycle</a></li>
<li><a title="View all posts in Climate Science" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/" rel="category tag" target="_blank">Climate Science</a></li></ul> — raypierre @ 2 November 2011 -</div>
<div>
<div>
<p>The impending Obama administration decision on the Keystone XL
Pipeline, which would tap into the Athabasca Oil Sands production of
Canada, has given rise to a <a title="Keystone XL protests" href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/164082/stop-pipeline-rise-against-keystone-xl" target="_blank">vigorous grassroots opposition movement</a>,
leading to the arrests so far of over a thousand activists. At the
very least, the protests have increased awareness of the implications of
developing the oil sands deposits. Statements about the pipeline
abound. </p></div></div><p>Jim Hansen has said that if the Athabasca Oil Sands are tapped, it’s <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/idUS323166223820110627" target="_blank">“essentially game over”</a>
for any hope of achieving a stable climate. The same news article
quotes Bill McKibben as saying that the pipeline represents “the fuse to
biggest carbon bomb on the planet.” Others say the pipeline is no big
deal, and that the brouhaha is sidetracking us from thinking about
bigger climate issues. David Keith, energy and climate pundit at Calgary
University, expresses that sentiment <a title="Tech Review on Oil Sands" href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38870/" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/can-obama-escape-the-alberta-tar-pit/" target="_blank">Andy Revkin says</a>
“it’s a distraction from core issues and opportunities on energy and
largely insignificant if your concern is averting a disruptive buildup
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”. There’s something to be said in
favor of each point of view, but on the whole, I think Bill McKibben has
the better of the argument, with some important qualifications. Let’s
do the arithmetic. </p><p>There is no shortage of environmental threats associated with the
Keystone XL pipeline. Notably, the route goes through the
environmentally sensitive Sandhills region of Nebraska, a decision <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/transcanada-s-keystone-pipeline-threatened-by-proposed-nebraska-re-routing.html" target="_blank">opposed even by some supporters of the pipeline</a>. One could also keep in mind the vast areas of Alberta that are <a title="Oil Sands Environmental Impact" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/30/energy.oilandpetrol" target="_blank">churned up by the oil sands mining process itself</a>.
But here I will take up only the climate impact of the pipeline and
associated oil sands exploitation. For that, it is important to first
get a feel for what constitutes an “important” amount of carbon. </p><div>
That part is relatively easy. The kind of climate we wind up with is
largely determined by the total amount of carbon we emit into the
atmosphere as CO2 in the time before we finally kick the fossil fuel
habit (by choice or by virtue of simply running out). The link between
cumulative carbon and climate was discussed at RealClimate <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/hit-the-brakes-hard/" target="_blank">here</a> when the papers on the subject first came out in Nature. A good introduction to the work can be found in <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877" target="_blank">this National Research Council report</a>
on Climate Stabilization targets, of which I was a co-author. Here’s
all you ever really need to know about CO2 emissions and climate:</div><ul>
<li>The peak warming is linearly proportional to the cumulative carbon emitted</li>
<li>It doesn’t matter much how rapidly the carbon is emitted</li>
<li>The warming you get when you stop emitting carbon is what you are stuck with for the next thousand years</li>
<li>The climate recovers only slightly over the next ten thousand years</li>
<li>At the mid-range of IPCC climate sensitivity, a trillion tonnes
cumulative carbon gives you about 2C global mean warming above the
pre-industrial temperature.</li></ul><p>This graph gives you an idea of what the Anthropocene climate looks
like as a function of how much carbon we emit before giving up the
fossil fuel habit, without even taking into account the possibility of carbon cycle feedbacks leading to a release of stored terrestrial carbon. The graph isfrom the NRC report, and is based on simulations with the U. of
Victoria climate/carbon model tuned to yield the mid-range IPCC climate
sensitivity. Assuming a 50-50 chance that climate sensitivity is at or
below this value, we thus have a 50-50 chance of holding warming below
2C if cumulative emissions are held to a trillion tonnes. Including
deforestation, we have already emitted about half that, so our whole
future allowance is another 500 gigatonnes.</p><p>
Proved reserves of conventional oil add up to 139 gigatonnes C (based on data <a href="http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html" target="_blank">here</a> and the conversion factor in Table 6 <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html" target="_blank">here</a>,
assuming an average crude oil density of 850 kg per cubic meter). To be
specific, that’s 1200 billion barrels times .16 cubic meters per barrel
times .85 metric tonnes per cubic meter crude times .85 tonnes carbon
per tonne crude. (Some other estimates, e.g. <a title="Nehring Phil. Trans. 2009" href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1532/3067.abstract" target="_blank">Nehring (2009)</a>,
put the amount of ultimately recoverable oil in known reserves about
50% higher). To the carbon in conventional petroleum reserves you can
add about 100 gigatonnes C from proved natural gas reserves, based on
the same sources as I used for oil. If one assumes that these two
reserves are so valuable and easily accessible that it’s inevitable they
will get burned, that leaves only 261 gigatonnes from all other fossil
fuel sources. How does that limit stack up against what’s in the
Athabasca oil sands deposit? </p><p>The geological literature generally puts the amount of bitumen
in-place at 1.7 trillion barrels (e.g. see the numbers and references
quoted <a title="Oil Sands Bitumen in Place estimates" href="http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/2/203" target="_blank">here</a>).
That oil in-place is heavy oil, with a density close to a metric tonne
per cubic meter, so the associated carbon adds up to about 230
gigatonnes — essentially enough to close the “game over” gap. But
oil-in-place is not the same as economically recoverable oil. That’s a
moving target, as oil prices, production prices and technology evolve.
At present, it is generally figured that only 10% of the oil-in-place is
economically recoverable. However, continued development of in-situ
production methods could bump up economically recoverable reserves
considerably. For example <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/22-TTG-Heavy-Oil.pdf" target="_blank">this working paper</a>
(pdf) from the National Petroleum Council estimates that Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage could recover up to 70% of oil-in-place at a cost of
below $20 per barrel <font><sup>*</sup>. </font></p><p>Aside from the carbon from oil in-place, one needs to figure in the
additional carbon emissions from the energy used to extract the oil. For
in-situ extraction this increases the carbon footprint by 23% to 41%
(as reviewed <a title="CO2 emissions from oil sands production" href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014005" target="_blank">here </a>)
. Currently, most of the energy used in production comes from natural
gas (hence the push for a pipeline to pump Alaskan gas to Canada). So,
we need to watch out for double-counting here, because our “game-over”
estimate already assumed that the natural gas would be used for one
thing or another. A knock-on effect of oil sands development is that it
drives up demand for natural gas, displacing its use in electricity
generation and making it more likely coal will be burned for such
purposes. And if high natural gas prices cause oil sands producers to
turn from natural gas to coal for energy, things get even worse, because
coal releases more carbon per unit of energy produced — carbon that we
have <em>not</em> already counted in our “game-over” estimate.</p><p>
Are the oil sands really the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
As a point of reference, let’s compare its net carbon content with the
Gillette Coalfield in the Powder river basin, one of the largest coal
deposits in the world. There are 150 billion metric tons left in this
deposit, according to the <a title="Powder River Coal Reserves" href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/" target="_blank">USGS</a>.
How much of that is economically recoverable depends on price and
technology. The USGS estimates that about half can be economically
mined if coal fetches $60 per ton on the market, but let’s assume that
all of the Gillette coal can be eventually recovered. Powder River coal
is sub-bituminous, and contains only 45% carbon by weight. (Don’t take
that as good news, because it has correspondingly lower energy content
so you burn more of it as compared to higher carbon coal like
Anthracite; Powder River coal is mined largely because of its low sulfur
content). Thus, the carbon in the Powder River coal amounts to 67.5
gigatonnes, far below the carbon content of the Athabasca Oil Sands. So
yes, the Keystone XL pipeline does tap into a very big carbon bomb
indeed. </p><p>
But comparison of the Athabaska Oil Sands to an individual coal
deposit isn’t really fair, since there are only two major oil sands
deposits (the other being in Venezuela) while coal deposits are
widespread. <a title="Nehring Phil. Trans. 2009" href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1532/3067.abstract" target="_blank">Nehring (2009)</a>
estimates that world economically recoverable coal amounts to 846
gigatonnes, based on 2005 prices and technology. Using a mean carbon
ratio of .75 (again from Table 6 <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html" target="_blank">here</a>),
that’s 634 gigatonnes of carbon, which all by itself is more than
enough to bring us well past “game-over.” The accessible carbon pool in
coal is sure to rise as prices increase and extraction technology
advances, but the real imponderable is how much coal remains to be
discovered. But any way you slice it, coal is still the 800-gigatonne
gorilla at the carbon party.</p><p>
Commentators who argue that the Keystone XL pipeline is no big deal
tend to focus on the rate at which the pipeline delivers oil to users
(and thence as CO2 to the atmosphere). To an extent, they have a point.
The pipeline would carry 500,000 barrels per day, and assuming that
we’re talking about lighter crude by the time it gets in the pipeline
that adds up to a piddling 2 gigatonnes carbon in a hundred years
(exercise: Work this out for yourself given the numbers I stated earlier
in this post). However, building Keystone XL lets the camel’s nose in
the tent. It is more than a little disingenuous to say the carbon in the
Athabasca Oil Sands mostly has to be left in the ground, but before
we’ll do this, we’ll just use a bit of it. It’s like an alcoholic who
says he’ll leave the vodka in the kitchen cupboard, but first just take
“one little sip.” </p><p>
So the pipeline itself is really just a skirmish in the battle to
protect climate, and if the pipeline gets built despite Bill McKibben’s
dedicated army of protesters, that does not mean in and of itself that
it’s “game over” for holding warming to 2C. Further, if we do hit a
trillion tonnes, it may be “game-over” for holding warming to 2C (apart
from praying for low climate sensitivity), but it’s not “game-over” for
avoiding the second trillion tonnes, which would bring the likely
warming up to 4C. The fight over Keystone XL may be only a skirmish,
but for those (like the fellow in <a title="Hansen arrest" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/nasa-scientist-hansen-arrested-at-tar-sands-protest-a-grim-sign-of-the-times-20110831" target="_blank">this arresting photo </a>)
who seek to limit global warming, it is an important one. It may be
too late to halt existing oil sands projects, but the exploitation of
this carbon pool has just barely begun. If the Keystone XL pipeline is
built, it surely smooths the way for further expansions of the market
for oil sands crude. Turning down XL, in contrast, draws a line in the
oil sands, and affirms the principle that this carbon <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images//balrog.jpg" target="_blank">shall not pass</a> into the atmosphere. </p><p>* <em>Note added 4/11/2011</em>: Prompted by Andrew Leach’s comment
(#50 below), I should clarify that the working paper cited refers to
recovery of bitumen-in-place on a per-project basis, and should not be
taken as an estimate of the total amount that could be recovered from
oil sands as a whole. I cite this only as an example of where the
technology is headed.</p><div>---------------------------------------</div><div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">You are using 3.3 mm rise per year as a basis for your projections.<br>
<br>While there is still a great deal of speculation about the subject, it appears that this rate is rising, and rising at a rate faster than was projected just three years ago. The latest findings having to do with the melting of Antarctic ice from below. Even three years ago the expected change in rate per year rise is climbing rapidly.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/predicting-future-sea-level-rise.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticalscience.com/predicting-future-sea-level-rise.html</a> [Last updated three years ago]<br><br><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/Warm-water-threatens-vast-Anatarctic-ice-shelf-video" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0509/Warm-water-threatens-vast-Anatarctic-ice-shelf-video</a> [Antarctic Ice Melt] <br>
<br>Here are two parts of many of the problem your analysis faces:<br><br>1. Average temperature of the earth's surface during the Pliocene Era [5.332 million to 2.588<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene#cite_note-ICS2009-1" target="_blank"><span></span><span></span></a></sup> million years ago] is only a controversial guess and since no comprehensive measurements of such temperatures were available. The size of this era makes any generalization about long range projections of little value since it appears that there were numerous global climate/temperature changes during this lengthy period [2.744 million years].<br>
<br>2. Since the Pliocene Era, continental drift and associated geological changes has greatly changed the configurations of land and sea that affect climate. Without factoring in these changes, projections based purely on this era are likely subject to considerable error.<br>
<br>I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I have been following it since a Geology Class in 1972. I have personally seen the a great deal of glacial ice loss in the Canadian Rockies of which I have been a frequent visitor since 1950. Perhaps Ted Moffett can offer some insight here.<br>
<br>w.<div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
I must think differently than most people. When I see somebody say
"The world is going to end! We're all going to die! But, wait! I
have a PLAN!" I immediately become skeptical. Doesn't mean he's
wrong, it just means that I'm going to assume he's exaggerating for
effect unless I find out otherwise.<div><br>
<br>
I don't have a lot of time tonight to go through this, but let's
take a quick look at the Pliocene era. Here's what James Hansen
says:<br>
<br>
"If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to
burn our conventional oil, gas and <a title="More articles about coal." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">coal</a>
supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more
than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet
higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would
assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate
out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities.
Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent
of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization
would be at risk. "<br>
<br></div>
So I did some quick research. The sources I found have the CO2
levels somewhere between 350 and 400 ppm during this period, which
we are indeed just passing now. The odd thing is that the
temperature during the Pliocene was about 2-3C warmer than it is
today, even at CO2 levels equal to today's levels. This was back in
the day when CO2 levels followed temperature, by the way, since
there were no evil humans driving SUVs. This is a open question in
geology, apparently. This is actually good news, since the Earth
did not accelerate into a hothouse world due to positive feedbacks
driven by the loss of the Arctic ice pack (it hadn't yet formed,
which is why the sea level was higher). In fact, 2.5 Mya is the
onset of the Pleistocene, during which the Earth was slid into an
Ice Age with short periods of warmth interspersed among long periods
of glaciation, the last one ending 15000 years ago or so. The CO2
level during this period (the Pleistocene) fluctuated between 100
and 300 ppm. Only lately have they been as high as they are now
(~394 ppm). Given that fact, it makes me wonder if we don't need
higher CO2 levels to prevent us from slipping into another Ice Age,
since these same levels were not enough to stop the last one even
though temperatures were warmer than now, and the Arctic ice pack
did not yet exist.<br>
<br>
As one of the premier climate scientists, I suspect that James
Hansen knows all this. My conclusion: he wanted to use the 50ft sea
level rise number as a scare tactic. Sea level rise, even at the
worst estimate provided by the IPCC, would take 4618 years to raise
50ft, by my calculations (50ft = 15240 mm / 3.3 mm/yr = 4618 years).<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
On 05/10/2012 04:46 PM, Art Deco wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">First, notice this is an OP/ED article.<br>
<br>
Second, notice that Hansen presents a lot of facts, then makes
predictions on that basis.<br>
<br>
Hence, if you want to dispute his facts, do so.<br>
<br>
If you want to dispute the probability of his conclusions based on
the facts presented or alternative facts, do so.<br>
<br>
However, he has a right, and perhaps even a moral obligation given
the seriousness of his claim, to present warnings to the world.<br>
<br>
Scientists do what Hansen is doing all the time, and have been do
so for a long time. The most common cases are about the
consequences of using various prescription drugs, OTC drugs, and
nutrients, medical devices, fillings, medical procedures, etc.<br>
<br>
All scientific theories are probabilistic, and therefore opinions
-- opinions hopefully based on probabilities based on careful
research and reasoning. Scientific theories predict impacts on
all of us. They ought be put into the market place of ideas for
all of us to evaluate.<br>
<br>
"Leave the rest to politicians." Are you fucking out of your
mind? Are you not aware of what egregious messes contemporary
politicians have gotten us into, and how little regard they have
for the truth and the overall well being of human kind?<br>
<br>
w.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div><span>I remember a day when scientists used to stick
to the facts. They would say things like "we can't
tell you what to do, but we can tell you that our
analyses have shown that this and this and this are
likely with this level of uncertainty". Nowadays,
scientists are fricking political activists. They
give their opinions in articles in Rolling Stone and
charge big sums of money for speaking engagements at
various venues, and get arrested for protesting oil
pipelines.<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Can James Hansen show with scientific certainty
that his plan would keep all the alarmist predictions
of disaster at bay and then it would no longer be
"game over"? What is the scientific definition of
"game over"? Climate scientists need to, in my
opinion, take back their scientific neutrality.
Here's what we've found, here's what our degree of
confidence is. Leave the rest to the politicians.</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>It's statements like "</span>the science of the
situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to
follow" that make me immediately skeptical of everything
he says.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Paul<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:49 AM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
[Vision2020] Game Over for the Climate<br>
</font> </div>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div>
<div> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img border="0" hspace="0" alt="The New York Times" vspace="0" align="left"></a>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=cc8f29dd/870b4e4f&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BOSW_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
<br>
</a> </div>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1">
<div>May 9, 2012</div>
<h1>Game Over for the Climate</h1>
<span>
<h6>By JAMES HANSEN</h6>
</span>
<div>
<div>
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is
happening. That is why I was so troubled to
read a recent <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/04/i-have-the-utmost-respect-for.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">interview with President
Obama</a> in Rolling Stone in which he
said that <a title="More news and information about
Canada." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/canada/index.html?inline=nyt-geo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Canada</a> would
exploit the <a title="More articles about oil." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">oil</a> in its vast tar
sands reserves “regardless of what we do.” </div>
<div>
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it
will be game over for the climate. </div>
<div>
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand
saturated with bitumen, contain twice the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global
oil use in our entire history. If we were to
fully exploit this new oil source, and
continue to burn our conventional oil, gas
and <a title="More articles about coal." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">coal</a> supplies,
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere eventually would reach levels
higher than in the Pliocene era, more than
2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at
least 50 feet higher than it is now. That
level of heat-trapping gases would assure
that the disintegration of the ice sheets
would accelerate out of control. Sea levels
would rise and destroy coastal cities.
Global temperatures would become
intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the
planet’s species would be driven to
extinction. Civilization would be at risk. </div>
<div>
That is the long-term outlook. But
near-term, things will be bad enough. Over
the next several decades, the Western United
States and the semi-arid region from North
Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent
drought, with rain, when it does come,
occurring in extreme events with heavy
flooding. Economic losses would be
incalculable. More and more of the Midwest
would be a dust bowl. California’s Central
Valley could no longer be irrigated. <a title="More articles about food prices and
supply." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/food_prices/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Food prices</a>
would rise to unprecedented levels. </div>
<div>
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is
why we need to reduce emissions
dramatically. President Obama has the power
not only to deny tar sands oil additional
access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada
desires in part for export markets, but also
to encourage economic incentives to leave
tar sands and other dirty fuels in the
ground. </div>
<div>
The <a title="Recent and archival news about
global warming." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">global
warming</a> signal is now louder than the
noise of random weather, as I predicted
would happen by now in the journal Science
in 1981. Extremely hot summers have
increased noticeably. We can say with high
confidence that the recent heat waves in
Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in
2003, which killed tens of thousands, were
not natural events — they were caused by
human-induced climate change. </div>
<div>
We have known since the 1800s that carbon
dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The
right amount keeps the climate conducive to
human life. But add too much, as we are
doing now, and temperatures will inevitably
rise too high. This is not the result of
natural variability, as some argue. The
earth is currently in the part of its
long-term orbit cycle where temperatures
would normally be cooling. But they are
rising — and it’s because we are forcing
them higher with fossil fuel emissions. </div>
<div>
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per
million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150
years. The tar sands contain enough carbon —
240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale,
a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in
the United States, contains at least an
additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we
turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of
finding ways to phase out our addiction to
fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping
carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a
level that would, as earth’s history shows,
leave our children a climate system that is
out of their control. </div>
<div>
We need to start reducing emissions
significantly, not create new ways to
increase them. We should impose a gradually
rising carbon fee, collected from fossil
fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent
of the collections to all Americans on a
per-capita basis every month. The government
would not get a penny. This market-based
approach would stimulate innovation, jobs
and economic growth, avoid enlarging
government or having it pick winners or
losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest
energy users, would get more back than they
paid in increased prices. Not only that, the
reduction in oil use resulting from the
carbon price would be nearly six times as
great as the oil supply from the proposed
pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline
superfluous, according to economic models
driven by a slowly rising carbon price. </div>
<div>
But instead of placing a rising fee on
carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay
their true costs, leveling the energy
playing field, the world’s governments are
forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels
with hundreds of billions of dollars per
year. This encourages a frantic stampede to
extract every fossil fuel through
mountaintop removal, longwall mining,
hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar
shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic
drilling. </div>
<div>
President Obama speaks of a “planet in
peril,” but he does not provide the
leadership needed to change the world’s
course. Our leaders must speak candidly to
the public — which yearns for open, honest
discussion — explaining that our continued
technological leadership and economic
well-being demand a reasoned change of our
energy course. History has shown that the
American public can rise to the challenge,
but leadership is essential. </div>
<div>
The science of the situation is clear — it’s
time for the politics to follow. This is a
plan that can unify conservatives and
liberals, environmentalists and business.
Every major national science academy in the
world has reported that global warming is
real, caused mostly by humans, and requires
urgent action. The cost of acting goes far
higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait
any longer to avoid the worst and be judged
immoral by coming generations. </div>
<div>
<div><a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">James Hansen</a> directs
the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies and is the author of “Storms of My
Grandchildren.”</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="width:310px"><br>
<h3><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/09/should-churches-get-tax-breaks?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Room for Debate:
Should Churches Get Tax Breaks?</a></h3>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
</blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div>