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

“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

NASA recently reported that the first seven months of this year were the warmest on record while the just released U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  2009 State of the Climate Report  using data combined from a number of sources shows that 2009 was the warmest on record, the first decade of the 21st Century was the warmest on record, as in turn were the decades of the 1980’s and the 1990’s. 

While the recent extreme weather is entirely consistent with climate change, short-term weather is not climate.  However the 30 years of constantly increasing global temperature is a pretty strong statement about our changing climate.  It is increasingly apparent that climate change is not a topic for future speculation, but rather a current reality.  While no single weather event can be said to be caused by climate change, the variable and extreme weather that we are now observing is the type and pattern of weather long predicted by climate change science.  If fact, the oft-maligned 2007 IPCC reports described regional weather patterns that perfectly match the events mentioned above. 

It is too late to debate whether or not climate change is real, or think of it as something that may happen in the future.  Climate change is real, and it is happening now.  It is no longer a question of how we can prevent climate change, but rather a question of how can we best adapt and will we take the steps necessary to slow the rate of climate change for future generations.  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America demonstrates that climate change will be irreversible for at least 1,000 years after a complete elimination of CO₂ emissions and that the effects of climate change will be greater as the CO₂ level increases.  Thus it is clear that the longer we fail to act, the more dire the consequences.  And the sad reality is that we are no closer to acting on climate change than we were 100 years ago.  The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen was a total fiasco, ending without the widely anticipated binding agreements.  As the international Bonn meeting in preparation for the 2010 conference in Cancun ended in disarray, there is no reason to hope that the issues that could not be resolved in Copenhagen will be resolved in Cancun one year later.  And displaying a total lack of leadership the U.S. Senate has failed to even consider climate change. 

As we continue to dump greenhouse gases, and other pollutants, into the atmosphere climate change will continue to gain momentum.  Floods, drought, fire, blizzards, extreme hot and cold temperatures, and violent storms will increase.  Species extinctions, crop failures, water shortages, non-productive oceans,  and storm damage will add to human misery, and extract an increasing economic cost.

Welcome to the new normal. 

  — Global warming causes climate change!

Heat is energy.  The increase of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and other gases; and,  the direct addition of heat due to energy consumption increases the thermal content and energy of the planet.   The increased thermal directly alters both the patterns and intensity of  air currents in the atmosphere and the ocean currents.

  — Weather is not climate!

Weather is a short-term, local condition, while climate is a long-term, regional descriptor.  Just as we properly speak of the weather today, this week or this year; but not the climate of this winter, the weather of this year does not reflect climate.  Climate is a long-term aggregation of weather conditions, and often defined and identified by the vegetation and fauna of the region. 

  — Climate change does not necessarily imply a warmer climate!

While global warming induced climate change may result in a warmer climate, it may also result in a cooler climate of a region.  The regional climate may also be wetter or drier, seasonal patterns altered,  and any number of climatic variables impacted.  If, for example the route of the warm currents of the North Atlantic were changed, it is entirely possible that the British Isles and Europe could experience a mini-ice age, as could the northeastern United States. 

While the these three points are a simplistic summary of an extraordinarily complex subject, their proper usage and acceptance is necessary if one is to understand global warming and climate change, and conduct a constructive dialog.

To understand what is going on this winter we need to call upon the science of meteorology (weather) as well as climatology.  A climatologist will tell us that global warming will result in weather that is more variable, and extreme than we have previously experienced.  Which we are indeed experiencing.   A meteorologist will tell us that the recent heavy heavy winter rain and snow storms are the result of a high amount of moisture in the atmosphere.  The climatologist will point out that a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture and warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation – which has indeed be observed for the past several years.  In the United States, the prevailing air currents have pushed the warm, moist air farther to the south than “normal” resulting in increased precipitation across the South West and South East, and increased snowfall when the moisture meets the cold air of mid-Atlantic region. 

The meteorologists talk about a stronger than usual El Nino circulation pattern causing the circulation shifts, and there is no doubt that we are in the midst of an El Nino cycle.  While there is no consensus among climatologists, many feel that the El Nino cycles will become more frequent, stronger and last longer.  There is evidence that this is indeed happening.  While the link between El Nino cycles and global warming warrants additional research, it should be noted that the conditions observed this winter are in in complete agreement with the long-standing predictions of more variable and extreme weather events resulting from global warming.

It is both important, and necessary, to again repeat that “weather is not climate”.  While the observed short-term weather conditions of this winter are entirely consistent with what would be expected from climate change, they cannot be taken as “proof” of long-term climate change.  But, for one to claim that the observed weather conditions this winter disprove climate change exhibits a complete lack of knowledge of climate change and the underlying science.

Herein lies the great dilemma.  If the world waits to take effective action until the last skeptic/denier is convinced of the reality of climate change we as a civilization, and perhaps as a species, will indeed be toast.  We have already passed the point where we can stop climate change within our life times.  The carbon dioxide that we have already dumped into the atmosphere will remain there for centuries, causing subsequent global warming until a new equilibrium is reached at some unknown point.  The best that we can do is slow the rate of global warming, and do our bit to keep that new equilibrium point as low as possible.  No human alive to day will live to see a reversal of climate change, the question is whether or not any living human will live long enough to see the nations of this planet implement the necessary, effective actions.

"Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are two terms that are often, and erroneously, used interchangeably.  While it is important to know the difference between these two terms, we must also know how they interact.

Global warming  is exactly what the term implies, a warming of  Earth.  It is the warming of Earths' land, water and atmosphere, and is measured by network of temperature observations at scattered around the globe.  Global warming is real, and is readily observed from the temperature measurements which show that the surface of the Earth increased steadily through the last century, with a total increase of approximately 0.75^oC, or 1.33^oF during the past 100 years.  This data is so overwhelming that it has been endorsed by virtually all scientific societies and national Academies of Science throughout the world.

This definition immediately raises two questions:

• “Can’t the observed warming be natural variability?” Certainly natural variability has always been present, but in the past changes of this magnitude have occurred over thousands, or millions, of years.  There is no known natural explanation for such a rapid temperature increase.  Secondly, the Earth should actually be in a cooling phase as the Earth is in that part of its elliptical orbit around the sun where it is moving away from the sun, not closer.
• “How can such a small change make any difference?”  The answer to this question is found in high school physics.  Heat is energy and is measured by temperature, therefore if the temperature of the planet increases, the planet contains more energy.  And in accord with the First Law of Thermodynamics energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but merely transformed in nature. 

Thus the simplest description of “global warming” is the addition of energy to the planet.

Having defined global warming as the addition of energy to the planet, we can now view Climate Change as a consequence of that added energy.  The addition of energy to the system has a number of effects upon the Earths’ systems, including the alteration of thermal gradients between the polar and equatorial regions on the planet. These thermal gradients are a primary driver of the air currents, such as the jet streams, and the ocean currents; which in turn are determinants of the Earths’ climatic patterns.  A planet with increased energy also exhibits greater volatility, or variability, in its weather.

But, what is “weather” and how does it differ from “climate”?  The answer is both duration and scale.   Weather is what we experience today, this year, this decade.  Weather is short-term.  Only when we average weather conditions over a long-term is it climate.  There is no universally accepted agreement on how long “long-term” should be before weather becomes climate, but the generally accepted minimum is 30 years.   Weather is also a local feature, and at times may be quite different just a short distance away, while climate is a regional feature, shared by many localities. 

It should also be noted that since the climate of a region is largely determined by large-scale air and ocean currents, climate change may result in the climate of a region becoming either warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, due to shifts in the air and ocean currents.  For example, if melting of arctic ice causes a shift of the gulf stream,  the eastern U.S. and western Europe may experience a much cooler climate, as has happened in the past. 

“Global warming”, “climate change”, “weather”, and “climate” – four terms describing four distinctly different, but related, parameters.  Proper usage of these four terms is essential for meaningful communication and for the formulation of effective public policy necessary to address climate change.

Rather than screw in a light bulb – write a letter!  Secondly, citizens must demand improved education in the sciences, math and engineering.  Thirdly, individuals should educate themselves about the causes and likely impacts of climate change so that we can all make well-informed decisions.

On December 6, 2009 the Washington Post carried an opinion piece by Mr. Mike Tidwell, founder and Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which states the issue with  clarity and eloquence.  I encourage the reading and discussion of this article, which is reproduced here with permission of the author:

“To really save the planet, stop going green

Posted by Mike Tidwell

07 Dec 2009

Here’s some food for thought: Like civil rights, we need statutes not gestures. And all domestic statutes and international talks should aim for one unmovable number: 350 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. It’s the only number that matters.

As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there’s one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop “going green.” Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d’oeuvres.

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country’s last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn’t ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider “10 Ways to Go Integrated” at their convenience.

Green gestures we have in abundance in America. Green political action, not so much. And the gestures (”Look honey, another Vanity Fair Green Issue!”) lure us into believing that broad change is happening when the data shows that it isn’t. Despite all our talk about washing clothes in cold water, we aren’t making much of a difference.

For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation’s primary response to global warming — and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of “5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office.”

As America joins the rest of the world in finally fighting global warming, we need to bring our battle plan up to scale. If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown. Much of Manhattan and the Eastern Shore of Maryland may join the Atlantic Ocean in our lifetimes. Entire Pacific island nations will disappear. Hurricanes will bring untold destruction. Rising sea levels and crippling droughts will decimate crops and cause widespread famine. People will go hungry, and people will die.

Morally, this is sort of a big deal. It would be wrong to let all this happen when we have the power to prevent the worst of it by adopting clean-energy policies.

But how do we do that? Again, look to the history of the civil rights struggle. After many decades of public denial and inaction, the civil rights movement helped Americans to see Southern apartheid in moral terms. From there, the movement succeeded by working toward legal change. Segregation was phased out rapidly only because it was phased out through the law. These statutes didn’t erase racial prejudice from every American heart overnight. But through them, our country made staggering progress. Just consider who occupies the White House today.

All who appreciate the enormity of the climate crisis still have a responsibility to make every change possible in their personal lives. I have, from the solar panels on my roof to the Prius in my driveway to my low-carbon-footprint vegetarian diet. But surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.

Instead, most people want carbon reductions to be mandated by laws that will allow us to share both the responsibilities and the benefits of change. Ours is a nation of laws; if we want to alter our practices in a deep and lasting way, this is where we must start. After years of delay and denial and green half-measures, we must legislate a stop to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Of course, all this will require congressional action, and therein lies the source of Obama’s Copenhagen headache. To have been in the strongest position to negotiate a binding emissions treaty with other world leaders this month, the president needed a strong carbon-cap bill out of Congress. But the House of Representatives passed only a weak bill riddled with loopholes in June, and the Senate has failed to get even that far.

So what’s the problem? There’s lots of blame to go around, but the distraction of the “go green” movement has played a significant role. Taking their cues from the popular media and cautious politicians, many Americans have come to believe that they are personally to blame for global warming and that they must fix it, one by one, at home. And so they either do as they’re told — a little of this, a little of that — or they feel overwhelmed and do nothing.

We all got into this mess together. And now, with treaty talks underway internationally and Congress stalled at home, we need to act accordingly. Don’t spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don’t take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: “What are the 10 green statutes you’re working on to save the planet, Senator?”

Demand a carbon-cap bill that mandates the number 350. That’s the level of carbon pollution scientists say we must limit ourselves to: 350 parts per million of CO2 in the air. If we can stabilize the atmosphere at that number in coming decades, we should be able to avoid the worst-case scenario and preserve a planet similar to the one human civilization developed on. To get there, America will need to make deep but achievable pollution cuts well before 2020. And to protect against energy price shocks during this transition, Congress must include a system of direct rebates to consumers, paid for by auctioning permit fees to the dirty-energy companies that continue to pollute our sky.

Obama, too, needs to step up his efforts; it’s not just Congress and the voters who have been misguided. Those close to the president say he understands the seriousness of global warming. But despite the issue’s moral gravity, he’s been paralyzed by political caution. He leads from the rear on climate change, not from the front.

Forty-five years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced tremendous opposition on civil rights from a Congress dominated by Southern leaders, yet he spent the political capital necessary to answer a great moral calling. Whenever key bills on housing, voting and employment stalled, he gave individual members of congress the famous “Johnson treatment.” He charmed. He pleaded. He threatened. He led, in other words. In person, and from the front.

Does anyone doubt that our charismatic current president has the capacity to turn up the heat? Imagine the back-room power of a full-on “Obama treatment” to defend America’s flooding coastlines and burning Western forests. Imagine a two-pronged attack on the fickle, slow-moving Senate: Obama on one side and a tide of tweets and letters from voters like you.

So join me: Put off the attic insulation job till January. Stop searching online for recycled gift wrapping paper and sustainably farmed Christmas trees. Go beyond green fads for a month, and instead help make green history.”

___________________________________

This copy of Mr. Tidwell’s article was reproduced from the CCAN blog, and can be found at:  http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog/?p=2498"

Thus we have three sources of energy, but with the exception of passive heating, none of these sources is directly useful – they all require capture, storage, conversion and distribution in order to provide the "work" desired by mankind.  For example, electricity is converted and distributed energy from the sun (coal, oil, wind, bio-fuel, or "solar"), rocks (nuclear) or gravity (hydro-electric).  Whether we burn gasoline or ethanol in our internal combustion engines, both are solar energy captured by plant photosynthesis, either refined or distilled, and then distributed to our engines.  The only real difference is that one has been stored in the ground for about 320 to 360 million years while the other has not.  [See "Too Valuable to Burn" for another perspective on this ancient carbon.]  We use the heat energy of a nuclear reaction to make steam, which drives a generator and makes electricity to be distributed to users.  Electricity is again a distribution medium, not the ultimate source of the energy.

The sun remains our largest source of energy, either through fossil energy stored as coal or oil, or such fuels as wood and biofuels.  As we attempt to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of coal and oil, we are primarily turning toward other forms of solar energy such as solar-driven air currents (wind) or "direct solar" (photovoltaics, steam/electric), and increased reliance upon hydro.  It is ironic that these so-called "clean", "green", or "renewable" energy sources are all extremely sensitive to climate change: and, in fact, are already being negatively impacted by climate change.  The western, and southeastern regions of the United States are in the midst of a prolonged, severe and increasing drought, which has already curtained the production of hydro-power, and as also occurred in other regions throughout the world.  "Direct solar" energy conversion requires copious amounts of water for cooling and steam generation.  In the U.S. the Southwest receives the most dependable supply of solar energy, but this water-short arid region is also impacted by multi-year drought. 

The wind industry is rapidly expanding, with many countries placing increasing reliance upon wind to help meet emission reduction targets.  But, a research study just reported in the esteemed "Journal of Geophysical Research"(1)  suggests a significant reduction of about 10% in wind (speed and duration) in the mid-west and eastern regions of the United States.  Similar results have been reported from Europe and Australia.  It has been suggested that the reduction is caused by global climate change with the warming conditions at the poles reducing air pressure gradients.

Throughout the world agriculture has been impacted by climate change.  Growing season temperatures, water supply, pests and disease are climate sensitive and directly influence agricultural production.  While plant breeding has resulted in exceptionally hardy varieties, the monoculture resulting from reliance on these "improved" varieties has resulted in an agricultural system that may prove to be especially vulnerable to effects of a rapidly changing climate, thus reducing the supply of materials for bio-fuels in addition to food.

The fact remains, that our current emphasis on wind, bio-fuels and "solar energy" is not introducing new energy sources, but rather new methods of capturing, or converting energy from the sun.  And the quandary is that while we are banking upon these alternate, "green" sources of solar energy to reduce slow global warming and subsequent climate change, the changing climate may already be reducing the effectiveness of their implementation.  In this regard, the longer we delay an effective global program to reduce warming of our planet, the less likely its success.

___________________________________

1.)  Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, D. T. Young, E. S. Takle, R. W. Arritt, D. Flory, W. J. Gutowski Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads (2009), Wind speed trends over the contiguous United States, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14105, doi:10.1029/2008JD011416.

A 20 page brochure intended for the general public is highly recommended. The key findings of the report were summarized and are presented below verbatim:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

4. Climate change will stress water resources. Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge. Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses. Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems. There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

Factsheets and brochures can be downloaded from: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/usimpacts-brochures The full report can be found at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report.