While the celebration of Earth Day has spread, much has also been lost, at least in the U.S.  The original Earth Day was a day of involvement.  It was a day of service, a day to pick up, clean up, plant and otherwise care for the Earth.  It was a day to work with other members of your community to reduce the damage that we have inflicted on the planet, and erase our footprints.  Today we more likely watch a dignitary “plant” a tree in front of City Hall, or go to a park to attend a concert and tour the booths of commercial vendors .  The concept of actual physical work and community involvement in environmentally-oriented projects has been replaced by mere passive attendance.  The irony is that rather than reducing our footprint on the Earth, we now increase it by our Earth Day “celebrations”.

On his return trip to the nations' capital from the 1969 oil well blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara, California Senator Gaylord Nelson conceived  the initial Earth Day.  The Santa Barbara oil spill and the Cuyahoga River (Cleveland, Ohio) fires had resulted in significant press coverage and heightened environmental awareness. Senator Nelson, a dedicated conservationist, had been deeply disturbed by the destruction caused by the mammoth Santa Barbara oil spill, and was also intrigued by the new college campus "teach-in" movement. Sensing the opportunity for increased citizen environmental involvement he directed some of his college age staff members to develop an national environmental teach-in, and stipulated that it be organized and managed at the community level, with only coordination and support at the national level.  Conceived in September 1969, the first Earth Day was held the following April.

On the eve of Earth Day 2010 the drill rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank causing the largest oil spill in history.  While the well was eventually capped, it is reported⁽¹⁾ that oil is still seeping in the vicinity of the well.  Oil is reported to still be present in the Gulf wetlands, and observed abnormalities in Gulf fish, invertebrates and marine mammals are being reported.  Meanwhile oil production from deep water wells in the Gulf have returned to pre-blowout levels, and new permits for deep water drilling are being issued at a record rate.  Even more disturbing, permits have been recently issued for drilling in the pristine Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea, sites were weather conditions would prevent a spill response similar to that mounted in the Gulf.   In sharp contrast to 1970 there is little, if any, media coverage of Gulf recovery, or future Arctic drilling, other than heightened calls for increased offshore drilling, which is claimed will lower the price of gasoline.

Likewise, both public and governmental interest in climate change appears to be waning, in spite of the extreme weather that has been, and is being,  experienced around the globe.  Media Matters recently reported⁽²⁾ that U.S. broadcast TV coverage of climate change has “plummeted” in the last two years with nightly news coverage dropping 72% between 2009 and 2011, with coverage dropping 90% on the Sunday shows.  During the two-year study period the majority of climate change information came from either politicians (50%) or media personalities (45%), and none from scientists.  At least in U.S. politics climate change has rapidly become a term that is associated with a fringe, liberal viewpoint, and is to be avoided at all costs.  Even being labeled as a past believer in climate change can be detrimental to a political career.   It appears to widely believed that climate change is a false belief that will destroy our economy, and increase unemployment.

Population, a primary cause of climate change, was a major focus of the 1970 Earth Day as demonstrated by this popular image from the cover of the journal, Environmental Action.  At the time, the global population was 3.7 billion, which has increased 90% to over 7 billion today.  However, the rate of population growth has slowed from 2.07% in 1970 to 1.07% today⁽³⁾.  It is important to bear in mind that this is a drop in growth rate, not a drop in absolute numbers.  Since the world population now is 90% greater than in 1970 the actual population is increasing by about the same number of people (approximately 75 million) today as it was in 1970 (about half the rate, but about twice the population).  Demographers do not agree on a reason for the past decline in growth rate, nor the future growth rate,  but if it remains at its current level the world population should reach  8 billion in 2023, 9 billion by 2041 and then 10 billion at some point after 2081.  However a slight increase in the growth rate would greatly increase the population by the end of the century, while a slight decrease in growth rate could actually result in a lower world population by 2100.

As long as we are dependent upon fossil fuels, population and consumption will be the primary drivers of climate change.  Since both population and consumption have increased since 1970,  and consumption will continue to do so as the economic condition of the citizens of developing nations improves, the ultimate result will be an increased rate of climate change.     The conventional surrogate for greenhouse gases (CO2) has continued to increase from value of 325ppm in 1970 to the current level of approximately 395ppm as measured at the isolated Mauna Loa Observatory.  More significantly, while the rate of population growth has decreased since 1970, the rate of CO2 increase has more than doubled since 1970, from 0.8 to over 2.0 today – a indication of increasing consumption. 

   A simple extrapolation of the Mauna Loa measurements indicates that CO2 levels will reach 550 ppm, by 2050, a value toward the low end of most predictions.

The challenge we face this Earth Day is nothing less than the reversal of the red, "extrapolated" line in the graph above.  While scientists disagree about the specific point at which climate change becomes irreversible, virtually  all agree that it is lower than 450 ppm, a level that will be reached in about 20 years at the present rate of increase.  

As citizens of the world, we must ask if complacency is warranted this Earth Day.  Have we done all that we can to fulfill the promise of the original, 1970 Earth Day?  Have our activities today “given back” to the planet?  It is apparent that we cannot rely on our leaders to protect the planet, but rather we must act to make it uncomfortable for them not to do so.  It has been reported that after the 1970 Earth Day President Nixon told his staff that “I don’t understand what those people want, but do whatever it takes to make them happy”.  Consequently the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and a broad array of legislation to protect the air, water, land and endangered species was rapidly signed into law. When 20 million Americans in communities all over the country united for the benefit of our planet the government had little choice but to listen and respond.  While such an outpouring of effort, at the grassroots level, seems unlikely today, we can, and must, make our voices heard.  Write your elected representatives, let them know that you care about our planet, and are concerned about climate change.  Watch how they vote, and thank them when they vote to protect the planet.  Not just on April 22, but make the 22nd of every month your own personal “Climate Day”!

Learn! Teach! Act!

___________________

1.)  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/03/20123313318459762.html

2.)  http://mediamatters.org/research/201204160010

3.)  http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpoptotal.php

4..)  Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory from: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and Dr. Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/)

5.)  CO2 extrapolation graph from:  http://greenphysicist2.blogspot.com/2010/02/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

By Guest Blogger Paul Douglas | Mar 28, 2012 

Meteorologist Paul Douglas

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority:  a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve.”  A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.

Weather 2.0. “It’s A New Atmosphere Floating Overhead.”

These are the Dog Days of March. Ham Weather reports 6,895 records in the last week – some towns 30 to 45 degrees warmer than average; off-the-scale, freakishly warm. 13,393 daily records for heat since March 1 – 16 times more warm records than cold records. The scope, intensity and duration of this early heat wave are historic and unprecedented.

Images courtesy of NOAA. Billion dollar disasters (upper).
Percentage of USA in drought/flood (lower)

.

Here’s what I suspect: the patient is running a slight fever. Symptoms include violent tornado sneezes, severe sniffles of flooding and raging rashes of jaw-dropping warmth. It’s 85 in March. What will July bring? It’s as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, put America’s seasons on fast-forward, and turned the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10. This isn’t even close to being “normal”. Weather Underground’s Dr. Jeff Masters put it best. “This is not the atmosphere I grew up with.”

Some TV meteorologists, professionals who are skilled at predicting short-term weather, are still in denial. Why? Some don’t like being upstaged by climate scientists; we’ve all been burned by weather models, and some (mistakenly) apply the same suspicion to climate models. Others haven’t taken the time to dig into the climate science. “It’s all political” one local TV weather-friend told me recently. No, it’s science. But we’ve turned it into a political football, a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. Weather and climate are flip-sides of the same coin; you can’t talk about one without understanding the other.

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.  

Bill O’Reilly, whom I respect, talks of a “no-spin zone.” Yet today there’s a very concerted, well-funded effort to spin climate science. Some companies, institutes and think tanks are cherry-picking data, planting dubious seeds of doubt, arming professional deniers, scientists-for-hire and skeptical bloggers with the ammunition necessary to keep climate confusion alive. It’s the “you can’t prove smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer!” argument, times 100, with many of the same players. Amazing.

Schopenhauer said “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” We are now well into Stage 2. It’s getting bloody out there.  Climate scientists are receiving death threats and many Americans don’t know what to believe. Some turn to talk radio or denial-blogs for their climate information. No wonder they’re confused.

“Actions Have Consequences.”

Trust your gut – and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab.  I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today.  What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either “The Mother of All Coincidences” – or the trends are real.

My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and “actions have consequences.”  Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect  on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences – where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.

In 2008, before it became fashionable to bash climate science, I had the honor of welcoming Iraqi war veterans back to Minnesota for a banquet. The keynote speaker was my hero, Senator John McCain. At dinner I asked him point blank “is it possible this warm, freakish weather is all one great big, cosmic coincidence?” He rolled his eyes, smiled and said “Paul, I just returned from the Yukon. The Chief Elder of a local village presented me with a 4,000 year old tomahawk that had just melted from the permafrost. The short answer? No.” How did we get from there – to here, with an entire party in perpetual denial? Is it still Al Gore? Fear of a government land-grab? My party needs to step up and become part of the solution, which, this century, will generate far more jobs and GDP than legacy, carbon-based industries.

“You’re obsessing,” my wife of 28 years complained recently. “People don’t like having this rammed down their throats.” Fair enough. I’m genuinely concerned, because I’m in touch with America’s leading climate scientists. They are beyond concerned; bordering on apoplectic. We fiddle while Rome burns.

Biblical Scripture: “We Are Here to Manage God’s Property”

I’m a Christian, and I can’t understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn’t that the definition of greed? In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.” Future generations will hold us responsible for today’s decisions.

I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil. My fellow Republicans have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the 60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers?  There’s a palpable fear that Big Government will ultimately prevent the energy industry from extracting (and burning) trillions of dollars of carbon still in the ground; the fuel we think we need to keep America competitive, growing and healthy.

U.S. reserves of carbon based fuels are 586 GtCO2, according to the Congressional Research Service.  Think Progress’s Brad Johnson estimates U.S. energy companies have roughly $10 trillion worth of carbon resources still left in the ground (coal, gas and oil). “A cap on carbon emissions designed to limit warming to 2 degrees C. will mean sovereign states and public corporations must strand 80% of their $27 trillion of proven (global) reserves and related assets, a loss exceeding $20 trillion” he said. This is what the fight is about.  Big Energy wants to keep us addicted to carbon-based fuels indefinitely; shareholders want to keep the money-spigot flowing, and lock in future profits. Surprised? Me neither. But in business, as in life, you hedge your bets. We can slowly, methodically, wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels, while investing in carbon-clean alternatives. That doesn’t mean government picks winners. That’s anathema to free enterprise.

Climate Change: The Ultimate Test for Capitalism. Let The Markets Work

I’m an entrepreneur. The eight Minnesota companies I’ve created ultimately employed hundreds of professionals. Where others see chronic problems I see opportunity. One of my companies is Smart Energy, with a new level of wind forecast accuracy for global wind farms. Last summer, in response to the most severe two years since 1816, my partners and I launched a new, national cable weather channel (“WeatherNation Television”) – to keep Americans updated with 24/7 storm reports. “Global Weirding” has arrived. Why bother? Because it’s the right thing to do. And because going green will generate green. As in profits. We won’t drill our way out of this challenge; we’ll innovate our way into a new, lower-carbon energy paradigm. Something we’re pretty good at. Professional skeptics will hold up Solyndra as a reason why this will never work. For the sake of our nation’s future – don’t believe them.

Every Day Is April Fool’s Day In Washington D.C.

Amazingly, America already has the technology and creative minds necessary to ensure future growth and more jobs, without treating Earth like a battered ATM card. We can tackle this problem, like we’ve tackled every other problem in our nation’s history. But do we have the political will? Our political system is broken, utterly incapable of dealing with long-term threats. Compromise is seen as weakness; our natural resources put at risk by political paralysis. Will getting serious about climate change require a third political party: a pro-jobs, pro-clean-energy Common Sense Moderate Middle – to prove that America can move forward and thrive, without trashing the land and air we value?  Perhaps.

The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It’s not your grandfather’s weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don’t want to believe thousands of climate scientists – at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years. For evidence of climate change don’t look at your back yard thermometer. That’s weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren’t there a generation ago.

This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grandkids will ask what did you know…when…and what did you do to help?  We’ve been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I’m no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.

“The Mother of All Opportunities”: Turning America Into The Silicon Valley of Energy

We can figure this out. Frankly, we won’t have a choice. But I’m a naïve optimist. We can reinvent America, leaving us more competitive in the 21^st century, launching thousands of new, carbon-free energy companies – supplementing, and someday surpassing anything we can expeditiously suck out of the ground and burn, accelerating an already-warming planet.  We don’t have to bury our heads in Saudi sand – we’ll never “frack” our way to a sustainable future. It’s time for a New Energy Paradigm. There’s no silver bullet. But there’s plenty of (green) buckshot, if we aim high and point America in the right direction. We need real leadership, and a viable, bipartisan blueprint for inevitable energy independence from President Obama and Congress. Yes, healthcare is important. So is the long-term health of our air, land and water.  

There are steps all of us can take today.  I own one hybrid, another on order. I bought a home a mile away from my office, to reduce my carbon footprint (and preserve some sense of sanity). But there’s much more I can do. Let’s challenge ourselves to reinvent our own energy ecosystems.

America 2.0. The Best Way to Predict the Future? Invent It

I don’t pretend to have the answer key. But the same Tenacious, Fast-Forward, Can-Do American Spirit that built the transcontinental railroad, the Internet, lasers and the first artificial heart – sending men sent to the moon in a breathtakingly short period of time – will ultimately figure this out. My youngest son is graduating from the Naval Academy in May, then heading to Pensacola. He’ll be flying choppers or jets; F-18s that can already run on biofuels. The Navy is serious about renewables and alternative fuels. Because it’s the best way forward – protecting our troops, securing supply lines, creating economies of scale that will make biofuels more competitive, leaving the Navy less vulnerable to price shocks in the oil markets. Hedge your bets. Put fewer troops at risk. Think ahead. Only the paranoid survive. In the words of my Eagle Scout brethren “Be Prepared.”  Go Navy. Beat Army.

We don’t have much time. Earth Day is April 22, but every day is Earth Day. Native Americans remind us of the sacred responsibility we have for all those who come next:

             “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors…we borrow it from our children.”

Paul Douglas is a nationally-respected meteorologist, with 32 years of broadcast television and 36 years of radio experience. He is the founder of several companies and author of two books, “Prairie Skies, the Minnesota Weather Book”, and “Restless Skies, the Ultimate Weather Book.”

In contrast to field studies, “meta-studies” analyze the results of a collection of previous studies.  In other words, they pull together and analyze data from a bunch of different studies, rather than undertake field or laboratory investigations.  Obviously the data included in meta-studies are often collected by different methods, in different locations and at different times, however when properly analyzed, these differences can strengthen the findings of meta-studies.  This meta-study, conducted by investigators at the University of York, England included data from over a 100 studies in Europe, North America, Chile and Malaysia and included both plant and animal species.

As would be expected, there was a great deal of variation in migration among species, with some moving little, or not at all, or even retreating over several decades.  But over all, the trend of migration toward cooler climates was clear.  Additionally, the rate of migration was correlated with the amount of climate change in species range.  According to Dr. Thomas “the more warming there’s been in an area, the more you would expect a species to move, and the more they have moved”.

Accelerating rates of upward migration have recently been described elsewhere, for instance a recent investigation⁽²⁾ revisited upward migration of American pikas in the Great Basin ecoregion of the North American west.  Records from the period 1898 to 2008 showed a near 5-fold increase of extinction of local populations and an 11-fold increase in the rate of upward migration during the past 10 years.  Pika populations are now moving upwards at an average rate of 145 meters (475.7 feet) per decade in response to a warming climate.

Dependence upon upward migration is little more than a short-cut to extinction, as the physical amount of potential habitat declines with increasing elevation until it becomes zero – at the top of the mountain.  As populations and communities migrate upward, they become increasingly physically isolated, and the gene pools of individual species tend to become increasingly unique.  The term “disjunct” is frequently applied to such isolated communities, and with the passage of time they become “relics” of ecosystems found under previous regional climates.  Often called “Islands in the Sky” by the popular press, mountain-top relic communities are a biological refuge, offering a window into the past.  As they have reached the top, many of the species comprising these ancient communities are now being “pushed off” the mountains, and into extinction, by a warming climate.

_____________________________

1.)  I-C. Chen, J. K. Hill, R. Ohlemuller, D. B. Roy, C. D. Thomas. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science, 2011; 333 (6045): 1024 DOI: 10.1126/science.12064321.

2.)  Beever, E. A., Ray C., Wilkening, J. L., Brusssard, P. F. and Mote, P. W. (2011), Contemporary climate change alters the pace and drivers of extinction. Global Change Biology, 17: 2054–2070. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02389.x

When the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970, population growth was of high concern.  The 1968 book  The Population Bomb⁽²⁾ become quite popular',  spawned organizations such as Zero Population Growth, and entered population into the mainstream of environmental concerns.  When The Population Bomb was published the world population stood at 3.5 billion⁽³⁾; it has now doubled.

With a growing population demanding more energy and goods, population growth is a significant cause of climate change, but the synergistic relationship between climate change and population growth is far greater and more complex than just a simple cause and effect.

We are currently witnessing a decline in both arable land and world-wide food production due to extreme weather events associated with a changing climate.  Severe droughts, floods, fires, temperature extremes,  and altered growing seasons are routinely occurring in virtually all regions of the world.  Less well defined, but nonetheless real, is a decline in beneficial insects and other pollinators, and the spread of exotic agricultural pests. 

Malnutrition is currently increasing in a number regions such as the Horn of Africa and Southern Asia. In addition to individual and local effects, malnutrition is of global consequence as it contributes to social unrest increasing political instability, population migration, warfare and the spread of disease.  Additionally, since children who are malnourished may never reach their full potential it robs deprives society of their contributions. 

As most of the population growth is occurring in developing nations it also makes it harder to slow climate change, as the increasing population will increasingly aspire to the standard of living of the  developed nations.  These developing, and growing, societies will like follow the same path as developed nations, slowing changing from individual energy sources such as wood or coal fires for cooking and heating, to central energy generation facilities utilizing cheap, readily available fuel such as coal-fired electric generation facilities, and ultimately to cleaner fuels.  The challenge is to short-circuit that pathway by jumping directly from individual energy sources to electricity produced from clean sources.  But that step has not yet been achieved in the developed countries, and seems far out of reach for developing regions.

The fact that climate change is global, and requires a global solution bears repeating.  The required cooperation between nations, and the very stability of the governments of nations can be easily undermined by the political instability, migration, competition for resources, and a declining land base caused by a growing population.

The consequences unrestricted population growth were spelled out by Malthus in the late 1700’s, but yet it remains a topic that most governments don’t what to talk about.  Yet, it is readily apparent that if they cannot control population growth and reduce global warming  the survival of our civilization remains uncertain.

______________

1.)  The world population clock was provided by 7billionactions.org, a United Nations Population Fund initiative.

2.)  Ehrlich, Paul R. (1968). The Population Bomb.. Ballantine Books. p. 161.

3.)  U.S. Census Bureau.  http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpopinfo.php

There can no longer be any doubt about a changing climate.  Our climate is changing now and it is too late stop it, or perhaps even significantly slow it down.  Our only choice is to finally recognize the reality of climate change, and learn to live with a climate  that differs from the one in which we, and the ecosystems upon which we depend, evolved.

The evidence is all around us.  No matter where on this globe you live, your region, or one nearby, has been suffering from long-term weather that is either drier, wetter, colder, or warmer than normal.  The gentle 3-day rains of 50 years ago have been replaced by heavy downpours. June, 2011, was the 316^th consecutive month with a global temperature (land and sea) above the 20^th century average⁽¹⁾.   While weather is not climate, violent and extreme weather are indeed characteristics of climate change and are readily explained by basic laws of physics to be the direct consequence of a warming planet.

The seasons are changing, The flowing times of many plants are changing, animal migrations and distributions are changing, and species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate.

Around the globe, ice is rapidly melting.  The Artic ice is melting so rapidly that commercial shipping is now using the Northwest Passage Polar region to move cargo between Asia and Europe during newly ice-free summer periods.  The spectacular Glacier National Park, in northern Montana, U.S., contained 150 glaciers in 1850.  There are now only 25 glaciers left in the park, and these are predicted to melt within the next 10 – 20 years⁽²⁾ leaving a national park dedicated to glaciers with none.

These, and many more, signs of climate change are direct observations.  They are not predictions, calculations, or speculation; they are observed facts with direct and immediate impact upon individuals and communities, and long-term economic and social consequences for the world’s societies.

By in large our leaders and governments have been increasingly ignoring climate change, or even denying it.  This is partially due to concerns about the global economies, but also due to political philosophies.  Unfortunately, the number of “climate deniers” in the United States national and state governments was greatly increased by the latest elections.  Many of these leaders have used their beliefs that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by those wishing to increase taxes and pass laws stifling economic growth and reduce individual rights to justify their policy positions.  The United States, and many other nations, did not act when we had the opportunity, nor did the nations of the world agree to a meaningful cooperative treaty during the IPCC conferences.  Now it is too late.

In apparent response to the growing social conservative movement in the U.S. the number of Americans who are either  “concerned” or “alarmed” by climate change has decreased from 51% in November of 2008 to 39% in May, 2011 according to the latest “Six Americas” update⁽³⁾.  Of even greater concern is the climate deniers are encouraging an anti-science sentiment that threatens science education and the future supply of scientists and engineers that will be essential for addressing the impacts of climate change.

What does the future hold?  It seems reasonable to assume that the global economic downturn will initially result in decreased energy consumption and the corresponding emission of greenhouse gases.  But, in the longer term there will most likely be an increased consumption of cheaper, dirtier fuels, such as wood and coal, primarily as a result of population growth in the developing nations and the reluctance of business to invest in cleaner energy sources as the economy improves.  Any meaningful legislation will be delayed, probably for decades, as social conservatives retain political power and influence public opinion.

A continuation of climate change is far less speculative than the economic and political future as many of the physical processes causing climate change have a built-in momentum and a changing climate results in self-reinforcing biological and physical “feedback” feed back processes⁽⁴⁾.

It is possible that global economic recession might cause a temporary slowing in the rate of climate change.  But in the mid- to long-term the Earth’s climate will continue to change at an increasing rate.  How we adapt to a new, and constantly changing climate is up to us.

________________________________

1.  National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center.  State of the Climate, Global Analysis, June 2001.  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/(viewed August 5, 2001)

2.  Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.  Retreat of glaciers in Glacier National Park.  http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm  (viewed August 6, 2011)

3.  Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming’s Six Americas, May 2011.  Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf

4.  AreWeToast.com, System Feedback and Tipping Points. http://arewetoast.com/system-feedback-and-tipping-points.html

“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government in order to save the environment.”

The above quote by famed photographer Ansel Adams has been attributed to a statement that he made in conjunction with the first Earth Day, in 1970.  In any event it is an apt sentiment as we mark the 4oth Earth Day as our environment is once again imperiled by our government.

Earth Day 2009 was entirely different from today.  In spite of the economic situation, people remained concerned about the environment.  Climate change was a major concern, with high hopes for a positive outcome from the 2009 United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP 15).  But in December the international Copenhagen conference turned into a shambles.  The COP 16 Convention, held in Cancun, Mexico in 2010 was practically invisible, making no substantial progress toward renewal of the Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012.  Little noticed, but highly significant, COP 16 marked a shift by the 194 nations represented from prevention of climate change to mitigation and adaption to climate change.

In the United States, the 2010 elections resulted in a dramatic shift toward the right, with a Republican take over of the House of Representatives and gains in the Senate.  On April 8th the government finally reached a budget agreement for Fiscal 2011 (which began October 1, 2010), which in addition to providing funds for this year also provides indications of future government policies.  The budget drastically cut programs for wilderness protection, conservation activities associated with agriculture, and climate change research.  The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency was cut 19%, but on the basis of a 50 – 50 vote in the Senate retained the ability to regulate air polluting emissions.  Clean energy research was reduced from 2010 by $1.2 billion.  Significantly a “rider” attached by the House overrode the science required by law and removed Timber Wolves from the endangered species list in 5 western states. 

The U.S. 2011 budget reductions do not bode well for the future.  When you couple the actions of Congress with the inaction of the President, whose election campaign included numerous promises of action on climate change and who now cannot bring himself to even say the words “climate change”, or “global warming”, it is clear that there is little hope for  effective government action on climate change, at least in the United States, for the foreseeable future.

Thus we must return to the words of Ansel Adams and renew the fight with our own governments to protect the environment.  This is not a one day a year, Earth Day task but continuing, year-round responsibility.  At the very least, make the 22nd of every month your Personal Earth Day, and on that day let your leaders know of your concerns regarding climate change and the environment!

 Learn! Teach! Act!

While he still actively promotes clean energy, Mr. Tidwell now believes that we are “running out of time” and that “our weather has gone haywire”.   As proof, he cites the string of extreme weather events that have been experienced in the mid-Atlantic region this past year.

There is no doubt that the Washington, D.C. area set snowfall records last winters, record heat last summer,  thunderstorms so frequent that “thundersnows” occurred during the winter, and periods of high winds became increasingly common.   None-the-less, Mr. Tidwell’s article appears to, at least border on, confusing climate and weather, or more precisely, climate change and individual weather events.    For example, Mr. Tidwell cites the frequent, widespread and long-duration power outages that have been experienced during storms in the Washington region.  While undoubtedly demoralizing, poor maintenance practices by a dysfunctional power company (Pepco) and a dense, aging urban tree canopy could have been major contributors to the power failures, rather than storms caused by climate change.  While extreme weather is indeed one of the expected consequences of global warming it is impossible to say that any specific weather event, or its severity, is a consequence of climate change.  Mr. Tidwell may indeed by quite correct that the number of extreme weather events recently experienced in the Washington region are an indication of climate change, but only time will tell.

The actions to protect his family described by Mr. Tidwell basically fall into two very human categories, self-defense and self sufficiency, which are obviously correlated; i.e. I have food, electricity and heat and must protect these resources from others. 

Mr. Tidwell's article has been cited and republished in a numerous other publications and blogs, such as ClimateProgress.org, and have thus generated a number of comments.  Many of the commenters describe actions that they have taken, with the vast majority again falling into the two categories of self-defense and self-sufficiency.  Interestingly, many of the commenters have purchased property to be used as a retreat from the impacts of climate change.  When describing these properties, commenters often focused on such attributes as a short drive to the property; good soil and water for food production and wind for power generation; and/or well armed neighbors.  That people have purchased their climate refuge only a short distance from their current location is interesting since both locations will most likely be experiencing the same change of climate.

While perhaps appearing fatalistic, self-defense and self-sufficiency are really a variation of what may be the only course of action that we have left, and that is “adaptation” to climate change.  We may be beyond a tipping point, with major climate change inevitable.  Our failure to act has ensured a changing climate for at least the next century, the only option now is to act in time to slow the rate of change, or perhaps even reverse it. 

Having failed to prevent climate change, the question becomes will we adapt to a changing climate as civilized societies.  Will our nations and communities prepare, and take adaptive actions, or will we become a collection of armed individuals protecting their resources against roaming bands who “have not”?

Addressing climate change, the House virtually eliminated all funding for climate research and prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources such as power plants, factories and refineries.

Additionally, the budget passed by the House will⁽¹⁾:

• Prohibit the EPA from collecting information about the sources and amounts of global warming pollution and making this information available to the public.
• Prohibit the EPA from setting limits on global warming pollution from power plants, factories and refineries, among the most significant sources of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.
• Prevent the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body tasked with reviewing the most recent scientific and technical information on climate change.
• Eliminate funding for the development of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Service — a program to efficiently supply scientific data and information about climate change and its impacts.
• Reduce or eliminate funding for dozens of clean energy and climate change-related programs across government agencies.
• Eliminate or reduce sources of international climate finance funding, inhibiting the U.S.’s ability to honor its international climate commitments.

In the Department of Energy a $2 billion reduction targets the agencies and offices with the most innovative clean energy research programs, including⁽²⁾:

• The agency which would be hardest hit would be the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds both the riskiest and most transformative, early-stage energy innovation projects, and would lose a staggering 75% of its budget under H.R. 1.
• The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which was responsible for roughly 34% of the DOE’s energy innovation investments in 2010, would lose 35% of its FY10 budget.
• The Office of Science, which funds critical early-stage energy innovation research, would see a 20% decline in its budget. Office of Science devoted 20% of its 2010 budget to energy innovation funding, while supporting additional fundamental physical science research.
• The Office of Nuclear Energy, which devoted 41% of its funds to energy innovation projects in 2010, would lose 23% of its budget.
• Meanwhile, the Office of Fossil Energy would see an 11% reduction in its budget. 43% of the office’s 2010 budget was devoted to energy innovation efforts.

If enacted these reductions will:

• Hasten climate change and ensure that it is more severe. 
• Result in a long-term, negative economic impact upon the U.S. that will soon be far greater than the cost savings claimed by the House Republicans.   The economic, public health, and social impacts upon other nations will be immeasurable.
• Result in increased unemployment as a consequence of a reduced economy and the loss of job opportunities in clean energy.
• Hasten the consumption of our fossil fuels.  There appears to be universal agreement that we are already past “Peak Oil” with total oil production continuing to decline in the future.    Consequently, energy prices will continue to increase and depress our economy; our energy prices and economy will become increasingly sensitive to foreign events, such as the current situation in Libya; and products such as plastics and fertilizer which are manufactured from fossil fuels will become more expensive and scarcer.  Oil is indeed already “too valuable to burn”.

While attempting to curry political gains, the House has done essentially nothing to reduce the debt or aid the economy.  To the contrary, by cutting $62 billion reduction from only the non-defense/non-security discretionary sector of the budget and including amendments that alter policy, not spending, and completely avoiding the hard financial choices that must be made the House has produced a bill that is counter-productive to their avowed objectives.   While reducing the total budget only one-sixteenth of one percent, the highly selective budget cuts and policy changes will ensure higher energy prices, increase our dependence upon foreign oil, reduce job opportunities, and harm public health.  Additionally the House bill contains reductions of funding for education that negatively impact our children, who will become the generation of scientists, engineers and physicians that must deal with the consequences of climate change.

By passing this budget the U.S. House of Representatives has done us a disservice, and if H.R. 1 is enacted as the final bill Congress will have done a disservice to the future generations of our world.

_______________________

1.)  http://repoweramerica.org/blog/a-budget-blow-to-our-climate/?source=em-fwd&utm_source=crm_email&utm_medium=email

2.)  http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2011/03/03/house-gop-budget-proposal-would-stifle-energy-innovation/

“Phenology” is the science that studies the influence of climate upon of plant and animal phenomena as the budding and flowering of plants, and the migration of animals.   Many of us are already phenological scientists; bird watchers  routinely record migration and nesting data, while many gardeners record flowering, harvesting and other data.    The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) depends upon volunteers to observe and share their data, and to organize and analyze previously collected data.  To be an observer, you can watch the same tree in your front yard, and each year report when the leaves appear, or fall.  Such data collected by many can tells us a great deal about climate change, and help us prepare for the future.

You are obviously using a computer to read this; if it is yours you can donate some computer time to a climate change project (if it is not your computer you don’t want to do this!).  Climateprediction.net is a a project to produce predictions of the Earth’s climate up to the year 2100, and to test the accuracy of climate models.  Based at Oxford University, the project utilizes “distributed computing”, which depends upon the donation of time on individual, personal computers.  The project utilizes a free, open-source software program, “BOINC” developed at the University of California-Berkeley for volunteer and distributed grid computing.  BOINC is currently running on nearly a half-million computers belonging to over 300,000 volunteers and organizations. 

To participate in an distributed computing project you load BOINC on your computer, and then select a project to receive your donated computer time, of which Climateprediction.net is just one.  Other projects include topics such as the control of Malaria, mathematics, protein analysis, and genetics.   Climateprediction.net recently published a ground-breaking study based on computation conducted on approximately about 60,000 donated computers.  The entire process of setting up a computer for this use takes less than 15 minutes.  The program then runs in the background, using only unused computer cycles, and automatically shutting down when it might slow, or otherwise interfere with your usage.  As most computer tasks typically use only a small percentage of computer capacity, the Climateprediction.net is using only wasted resources and is invisible to the user. 

These are but two of many volunteer opportunities that require very little time and effort, but where the collective contribution of many volunteers is of great value.  And in each case, you can watch the progress and results of the project in which you are participating.  Visit http://usanpn.org for more information about phenology,  http://climateprediction.net for information on climate modeling projects, and http://boinc.berkeley.edu for open source grid computing software and to volunteer for various projects. 

“Cause” vs. “contribute” are really two different, but related, questions.  By way of illustration we can start with a couple of very fundamental facts.  Warm water evaporates more quickly that cold water, and warm air holds more moisture than cooler air.  Thousands of global temperature measurements tell us that the oceans and the atmosphere are warming, therefore moisture is being added to the atmosphere more rapidly and the air has the capacity to hold more moisture.  Therefore it stands to reason global warming may contribute to the intensity of individual rainfall events and may even cause them.  

However, the ability to quantify any effect of climate change upon rainfall, and to scientifically prove a cause and effect relationship is a more difficult task.   Two recent papers in the on-line version of the esteemed British journal, Nature, have addressed this topic.  The first, “Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes”⁽¹⁾ compared  50 years of precipitation records (1951 – 1999) over much of the northern hemisphere with the results of several computer models used to predict 20th century precipitation.  It was only when the effects of greenhouse gases was added to the models that agreement with the actual measured precipitation was obtained.  The study showed an increase of 7% in the probability of extreme precipitation on any given day during the later half of the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere, a far greater percentage than would be expected from the natural variability of weather.  A second finding was that existing climate models tend to be conservative in predicting precipitation, typically underestimating the amount that was actually measured.

With a more narrow geographic scope, another paper “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000” ⁽²⁾ examined the data from a single, regional event, the wettest autumn since records began in 1766, and found that the chances of such  heavy floods as the region experienced in the fall of 2000 were roughly doubled by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Nine out of ten of their computer model simulations showed that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the probably of such flooding as experienced in 2000 by over 20%, while two-thirds of the simulations showed an increased probability of over 90%.

The fact that both of these groundbreaking studies took nearly 10 years to complete, even when an base of actual data existed, shows the tremendous amount of computer time that the highly complex climate models require.  While such models may not be perfect, they are rapidly becoming more accurate, and as demonstrated here, capable of more highly refined results; and they are definately the best available tools for understanding climate change.   Note that in both cases, these studies are not saying that specific weather events were directly caused by climate change, but rather that the probabilities of their occurrence was increased by climate change. It is also noteworthy that the second study, dealing with the 2000 flood risk in England and Wales, was conducted by the ClimatePrediction.net project at Oxford University, using a computer grid composed of approximately 60,000 donations of unused computer cycles on individual personal computers around the world.

_________________________________________

1.) Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html

2.) Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html