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

As I attempt to examine the consequences of this election, I will often turn to information collected and presented by others.   The summary below, by Scott Keyes, was published on the Think Progress site (a liberal blog) based on a September survey of Republican candidates conducted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“REPORT: Meet The 2010 GOP Freshman Class

Following last night’s election, over 100 freshmen Republicans will take their seats in the 112th Congress. These GOPers come from disparate backgrounds, but they are united by their adherence to the extreme wing of conservative ideology.

A new ThinkProgress investigation has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists. They are pushing not just to end birthright citizenship, but also demand that the United States reduce the number of legal immigrants.

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT

- 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
- 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

- 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
- 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

- 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
- 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
- 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

This is where individual incoming GOP freshmen stand on each issue:

Key

GW: Global warming denier
CC: No climate change legislation

BC: End birthright citizenship
RI: Reduce legal immigration

TP: No tax increase pledge
ET: Repeal estate tax

BB: Balanced budget amendment

Martha Roby (AL-02) CC TP ET
Mo Brooks (AL-05) GW CC TP ET

Joe Miller* (AK-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Paul Gosar (AZ-01) CC BC RI TP

Ben Quayle (AZ-03) GW CC BC TP ET
David Schweikert (AZ-05) CC BC RI TPET BB

Ruth McClung* (AZ-07) GW CC ET BB
Jesse Kelly* (AZ-08) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Rick Crawford (AR-01) CC TP ET
Tim Griffin (AR-02) CC BC RI TP ET

Steve Womack (AR-03) CC BC RI TP
John Boozman (AR-SEN) GW CC BC RI TPET BB

David Harmer* (CA-11) GW CC TP ET
Jeff Denham (CA-19) GW CC TP

Andy Vidak (CA-20) GW TP ET
Scott Tipton (CO-03) CC TP ET

Cory Gardner (CO-04) GW CC TP BB
Steve Southerland (FL-02) CC BC RI TPET BB

Rich Nugent (FL-05) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Daniel Webster (FL-08) CC BC RI TP ET

Dennis Ross (FL-12) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Allen West (FL-22) GW BC RI ET

Sandy Adams (FL-24) CC BC RI TP ETBB
David Rivera (FL-25) CC TP ET

Marco Rubio (FL-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Rob Woodall (GA-07) BC RI

Austin Scott (GA-08) CC BC RI TP ET
Raul Labrador (ID-01) CC RI TP ET BB

Joe Walsh* (IL-08) GW CC TP BB
Robert Dold (IL-10) GW CC TP

Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) CC TP
Randy Hultgren (IL-14) GW CC TP ET BB

Bobby Schilling (IL-17) GW CC BC TPET BB
Mark Kirk (IL-SEN) CC

Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) CC TP ET BB
Todd Rokita (IN-04) GW CC TP ET

Larry Bucshon (IN-08) GW CC TP ET BB
Todd Young (IN-09) GW CC TP BB

Dan Coats (IN-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) GW CC BC RI TPET

Kevin Yoder (KS-03) ET
Mike Pompeo (KS-04) CC TP ET

Jerry Moran (KS-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP
Rand Paul (KY-SEN) GW CC BC TP ET BB

Jeff Landry (LA-03) CC TP BB
Andy Harris (MD-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB

Dan Benishek (MI-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Bill Huizenga (MI-02) GW CC TP ET

Justin Amash (MI-03) CC TP ET BB
Tim Walberg (MI-07) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB

Chip Cravaack (MN-08) GW TP ET BB

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) GW CC BC TPET
Billy Long (MO-07) CC ET

Roy Blunt (MO-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Steven Palazzo (MS-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB
Renee Ellmers (NC-02) TP ET BB

Rick Berg (ND-AL) CC TP ET
John Hoeven (ND-SEN) GW

Frank Guinta (NH-01) CC TP ET BB
Charlie Bass (NH-02) GW CC BC TP

Kelly Ayotte (NH-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
Jon Runyan (NJ-03) CC ET BB

Joe Heck (NV-03) CC BC RI TP ET
Steve Pearce (NM-02) GW CC BC TP ET

Mike Grimm (NY-13) GW CC TP ET BB
Nan Hayworth (NY-19) GW CC TP ET BB

Chris Gibson (NY-20) CC TP
Richard Hanna (NY-24) ET

Anne Marie Buerkle* (NY-25) GW CCTP ET BB
Tom Reed (NY-29) CC TP ET

Steve Chabot (OH-01) GW CC TP ET BB
Bill Johnson (OH-06) CC TP ET

Steve Stivers (OH-15) GW CC TP ET
Jim Renacci (OH-16) CC TP ET BB

Bob Gibbs (OH-18) GW CC BC RI TP ETBB
Rob Portman (OH-SEN) TP

James Lankford (OK-05) GW CC BC TPET
Mike Kelly (PA-03) CC TP ET

Pat Meehan (PA-07) CC TP ET
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) CC TP ET

Tom Marino (PA-10) CC BC RI TPET BB
Lou Barletta (PA-11) CC BC RI TPET

Pat Toomey (PA-SEN) GW TPET
Tim Scott (SC-01) CC TPET BB

Jeff Duncan (SC-03) BC RI TP
Trey Gowdy (SC-04) GW CC TP ET BB

Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) GW CC TP ETBB
Kristi Noem (SD-AL) GW CC TP ET

Chuck Fleischman (TN-03) BC RI TP ET
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04) CC BC RI TP ETBB

Diane Black (TN-06) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Stephen Fincher (TN-08) CC TP ET

Bill Flores (TX-17) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Francisco Canseco (TX-23) CC TP

Blake Farenthold (TX-27) GW BB
Mike Lee (UT-SEN) CC BC TP ET BB

Scott Rigell (VA-02) GW CC BC RI TP
Robert Hurt (VA-05) GW CC TP ET

Morgan Griffith (VA-09) GW CC TP ET
Keith Fimian* (VA-11) GW CC TP ET BB

John Koster* (WA-02) GW CC BC RI TPET BB
Jamie Herrera (WA-03) CC TP ET

Dick Muri* (WA-09) GW TP BB
Dino Rossi* (WA-SEN) GW TP ET BB

Sean Duffy (WI-07) CC TP ET
Reid Ribble (WI-08) CC TP ET

Ron Johnson (WI-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB
David McKinley (WV-01) GW CC BC RITP ET BB

*- These races are currently too close to call.”

(List edited to update two races in Washington State.)

The study surveyed 2030 adults, selected on the basis of U.S. Census distribution, who were asked 43 questions to test their knowledge of climate change, and 12 questions about their sources of information.  Based on the number of correct "knowledge" answers, only 1% of the respondents received an grade of “A”, while 77% received either a “D” (25%) or an “F” (52%). 

The authors’ summary of the study⁽²⁾ is:

"Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming. Among other findings, the study identifies a number of important gaps in public knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change.

Overall, we found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society. For example, only:

• 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
• 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface;
• 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification. 

Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.

However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.

In addition, despite the recent controversies over “climategate” and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.

Americans also recognize their own limited understanding. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more about the issue. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans more about the issue."

If we, as a society, are to make the intelligent decisions and choices that are necessary to adapt to climate change, and reduce global warming, our citizens must have far more complete understanding of basic climate science.  We must all Learn, Teach others, and Act!

The Yale study was restricted to the United States – how do the results compare to your country?  Leave a comment and let us know.

___________________

1.)  Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. &  Marlon, J.R. (2010) Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

2.)   http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/knowledge-of-climate-change