![Global Warming: Which Future Do You Choose?
How urgent is global warming? This urgent, according to NASA scientist physicist and climatologist James E. Hansen:Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
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 coal 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.
Given that scenario, the statement “civilization would be at risk” seems an understatement. A better way to put it might be, “Civilization will be struggling to maintain itself — if we’re really, really lucky.”
In the nearer term, things don’t look any better. “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,” Hansen writes. “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. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.”
Hansen isn’t pulling this out of his butt, as much as some would like to believe. His warning is based on a peer-reviewed statistical study showing that global warming is affecting weather — not will affect the weather, is affecting the weather. We’re seeing a process that’s happening now.Time:
Hansen’s reasoning has to do with math. Statisticians employ standard deviation to measure variability; it’s the calculation pollsters use to determine margin of error, and it’s especially valuable when looking at the weather. Perfect distribution of standard deviation is graphed as the familiar bell curve; about two-thirds of the time, data points fall in the middle of the bell — or within one standard deviation of the mean.
[…]
In the paper, which Time.com confirmed has been peer-reviewed, the authors show that extreme outliers of more than three standard deviations above the mean temperature covered between six and thirteen percent of the globe during the years 2003 to 2008. If they were normally distributed and similar to the climactic record, that should have been just a 0.1-to-0.2 percent frequency of an extreme heat event. (That’s about exactly as often as a perfect bell curve predicts they would occur.) Hansen dubs this difference a “three-sigma anomaly,” for the Greek-letter symbol for standard deviation. And in the world of statistics, these anomalies represent a stunning 10-fold increase in extreme weather events.
In other words, it’s statistically impossible for this to be part of the “normal variation” that deniers claim it to be. To go back to the bell curve, think of throwing dice. “Imagine dice with two sides red (for hot), two sides blue (for cold) and two sides white (average temperatures),” Time explains. “If you roll the dice, you’re equally likely to get any result. With continued emissions of greenhouse gas, however, the authors predicted that by the early 21st century, four of the sides would be red.”
“The climate dice are loaded now, just as we said back in the 1980s that they would be,” Hansen told Time. “People should be able to recognize the change, especially the increasingly extreme events. Don’t be surprised if there are more examples this summer.”
I know this whole climate change thing is scary, but it’s long past time for people to put on their big kid pants and deal with it.
-Wisco](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m40tf2m5yJ1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
Global Warming: Which Future Do You Choose?
How urgent is global warming? This urgent, according to NASA scientist physicist and climatologist James E. Hansen:
Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
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 coal 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.
Given that scenario, the statement “civilization would be at risk” seems an understatement. A better way to put it might be, “Civilization will be struggling to maintain itself — if we’re really, really lucky.”
In the nearer term, things don’t look any better. “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,” Hansen writes. “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. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.”
Hansen isn’t pulling this out of his butt, as much as some would like to believe. His warning is based on a peer-reviewed statistical study showing that global warming is affecting weather — not will affect the weather, is affecting the weather. We’re seeing a process that’s happening now.
Time:
Hansen’s reasoning has to do with math. Statisticians employ standard deviation to measure variability; it’s the calculation pollsters use to determine margin of error, and it’s especially valuable when looking at the weather. Perfect distribution of standard deviation is graphed as the familiar bell curve; about two-thirds of the time, data points fall in the middle of the bell — or within one standard deviation of the mean.
[…]
In the paper, which Time.com confirmed has been peer-reviewed, the authors show that extreme outliers of more than three standard deviations above the mean temperature covered between six and thirteen percent of the globe during the years 2003 to 2008. If they were normally distributed and similar to the climactic record, that should have been just a 0.1-to-0.2 percent frequency of an extreme heat event. (That’s about exactly as often as a perfect bell curve predicts they would occur.) Hansen dubs this difference a “three-sigma anomaly,” for the Greek-letter symbol for standard deviation. And in the world of statistics, these anomalies represent a stunning 10-fold increase in extreme weather events.
In other words, it’s statistically impossible for this to be part of the “normal variation” that deniers claim it to be. To go back to the bell curve, think of throwing dice. “Imagine dice with two sides red (for hot), two sides blue (for cold) and two sides white (average temperatures),” Time explains. “If you roll the dice, you’re equally likely to get any result. With continued emissions of greenhouse gas, however, the authors predicted that by the early 21st century, four of the sides would be red.”
“The climate dice are loaded now, just as we said back in the 1980s that they would be,” Hansen told Time. “People should be able to recognize the change, especially the increasingly extreme events. Don’t be surprised if there are more examples this summer.”
I know this whole climate change thing is scary, but it’s long past time for people to put on their big kid pants and deal with it.
-Wisco
It’s been fun, but here come the Cylons.
Scientists have created artificial genetic material that can store information and evolve over generations in a similar way to DNA – a feat expected to drive research in medicine and biotechnology, and shed light on how molecules first replicated and assembled into life billions of years ago.
Ultimately, the creation of alternatives to DNA could enable scientists to make novel forms of life in the laboratory.
Filed under “things that freak me out just a little bit.”
Climate research brings a tiny bit of good news for a change.
Earth’s clouds got a little lower — about one percent on average — during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.
Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.
Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a “negative feedback” mechanism — a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. “We don’t know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,” says Davies. “But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude.”
From what we know of the present rate of warming, it’s not enough to offset it entirely; if it could, it would and we wouldn’t be talking about climate change. And history also backs that up — a previous period of warming was so intense that dinosaurs were able to easily survive in Antarctica. You have to assume the same thing happened then. But more time is more time. So good news there.
It also strikes me that lowering clouds would mean more cloud cover, assuming evaporation and condensation is the same. Clouds would share a smaller sphere, in a sense, and would therefore shade more area. If you give it some thought, you can see upsides and downsides to this, since it means less direct sunlight.
But, as the researchers caution, this isn’t definitive. But it’s reason for hope and optimism, I think.
![As Science is Politicized, One Scientist Thinks Politically
As shocking revelations go, it wasn’t much of one; leaked documents showed that a rightwing thinktank had a detailed PR strategy to get everyone to believe that global warming is a hoax. Among other things, the Heartland Institute would produce “modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact,” with the goal of teaching the controversy, not the science.
“The scientific debate remains open,” one memo reads. “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
It’s a strategy pioneered by creationists, which really ought to tell you all you need to know about its educational and scientific value. At first, the climate deniers claimed that the documents were forgeries. But then environmental scientist and writer Peter Gleick came out as the leaker and put that lie to bed. Gleick says he first received a document in the mail from an anonymous source, then requested more documents from Heartland using a fake name. He got them.Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.This is obviously the worst thing ever!
Of course, informed readers will remember the ginned up “Climategate,” where hackers illegally broke into servers at the University of East Anglia, and stole a bunch of emails — emails they then released piecemeal and out of context. Science writer PZ Myers does.I don’t get it. First there was Climategate, in which hackers illegally broke into a server at the University of East Anglia and stole a pile of emails from climate researchers. The denialists seemed to be fine with that, and quote-mined the heck out of the documents to find damning statements, lying and claiming that they showed that the scientists faked their data (they did no such thing, of course). All the sturm and drang at that time was over the contents of the emails, not the illegal method of their acquisition.
Now the shoe is on the other foot…
But then he gets perplexed. “And [here’s] Peter Gleick beating himself up for exposing the Heartland Institute’s mendacity,” he writes. “I really don’t get that. He’s a scientist. Scientists gather data to make informed decisions. Gleick got the data the Heartland Institute tried to hide. You can’t on one hand condemn Gleick for asking for the information and getting it handed to him, while praising hackers for breaking into a server and illegally taking data.”
I’m surprised that Meyers doesn’t see what’s happening here. Gleick’s goal in “beating himself up” isn’t to confess to some perceived professional lapse — although that’s exactly how he casts it — but to verify the authenticity of the documents. The documents are unquestionably real and we know that because Peter Gleick just confessed to what the right are hyperbolically and hypocritically referring to as “theft.” He’s put his personal and professional reputation on the line — or, at least, he seems to have. In truth, he did what any good investigative journalist might have done. There is no actual ethical breach here and Gleick knows it.
Peter Gleick has a PR strategy of his own. Turnabout is, after all, fair play.
-Wisco](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzr8koQ74N1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
As Science is Politicized, One Scientist Thinks Politically
As shocking revelations go, it wasn’t much of one; leaked documents showed that a rightwing thinktank had a detailed PR strategy to get everyone to believe that global warming is a hoax. Among other things, the Heartland Institute would produce “modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact,” with the goal of teaching the controversy, not the science.
“The scientific debate remains open,” one memo reads. “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
It’s a strategy pioneered by creationists, which really ought to tell you all you need to know about its educational and scientific value. At first, the climate deniers claimed that the documents were forgeries. But then environmental scientist and writer Peter Gleick came out as the leaker and put that lie to bed. Gleick says he first received a document in the mail from an anonymous source, then requested more documents from Heartland using a fake name. He got them.
Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
This is obviously the worst thing ever!
Of course, informed readers will remember the ginned up “Climategate,” where hackers illegally broke into servers at the University of East Anglia, and stole a bunch of emails — emails they then released piecemeal and out of context. Science writer PZ Myers does.
I don’t get it. First there was Climategate, in which hackers illegally broke into a server at the University of East Anglia and stole a pile of emails from climate researchers. The denialists seemed to be fine with that, and quote-mined the heck out of the documents to find damning statements, lying and claiming that they showed that the scientists faked their data (they did no such thing, of course). All the sturm and drang at that time was over the contents of the emails, not the illegal method of their acquisition.
Now the shoe is on the other foot…
But then he gets perplexed. “And [here’s] Peter Gleick beating himself up for exposing the Heartland Institute’s mendacity,” he writes. “I really don’t get that. He’s a scientist. Scientists gather data to make informed decisions. Gleick got the data the Heartland Institute tried to hide. You can’t on one hand condemn Gleick for asking for the information and getting it handed to him, while praising hackers for breaking into a server and illegally taking data.”
I’m surprised that Meyers doesn’t see what’s happening here. Gleick’s goal in “beating himself up” isn’t to confess to some perceived professional lapse — although that’s exactly how he casts it — but to verify the authenticity of the documents. The documents are unquestionably real and we know that because Peter Gleick just confessed to what the right are hyperbolically and hypocritically referring to as “theft.” He’s put his personal and professional reputation on the line — or, at least, he seems to have. In truth, he did what any good investigative journalist might have done. There is no actual ethical breach here and Gleick knows it.
Peter Gleick has a PR strategy of his own. Turnabout is, after all, fair play.
-Wisco
Republicans, corporations waging war on facts.
Union of Concerned Scientists:
The federal government is moving closer to protecting scientists and the integrity of its science-based decisions, but more must be done to protect the policymaking process from corporate influence, according to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists today.
The report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense, chronicles the most common ways that corporations influence how science is used to make policy, from restricting the effectiveness of federal agencies to corrupting the scientific work itself.
Released at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference in Vancouver today, the report details the extent to which inappropriate corporate influence on science has prevented the United States from using the best available science to protect public health and the environment.
“While many believe that political interference in science went extinct when President Bush left office, the reality is that the pressure to politicize science is still with us,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s Scientific Integrity program. “Many companies are prioritizing private gain at the expense of the public good, and abuse science to achieve their goals.”
The report includes detailed examples of the tactics corporate interests use, including harassing federal scientists, ghostwriting scientific articles to undermine federal research, and undermining how science is used to form agency policy in the name of “reform.”
“President Obama has put us on a path forward, but the journey is far from over,” said Grifo. “Fully neutralizing the problem of political interference in science will take persistence and the engagement of both government and the private sector.”
