Climate Scientists Talk Serious

We thought we'd post today's Discovery News story--which presents climate scientists' assessment of where we stand with climate change--here at EnvironMental Case, so you could weigh in and tell us what you think. Are you worried, very worried? Here's the story:

The Time Is Now, Climate Experts Warn

Jessica Marshall, Discovery News

June 27, 2008 -- Earlier this week, renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen warned Congress of the dangers of climate change, exactly 20 years after he did so for the first time.

The message he delivered was almost the same as it was in 1988, but there was one key difference: "The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb," he said.

Hansen's message painted a stark and urgent picture of a world already past the point where significant damage would occur. Discovery News wanted to know if other scientists shared his view. Are we really in for it and at what point? What are our options for avoiding the worst?

Earth's Carbon Budget

Hansen argued this week that the "safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less." This recommended level is less than the amount currently in the atmosphere -- 385 ppm. It may also be less than the commonly discussed stabilization target of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) of temperature increase, which probably corresponds to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 350-400 ppm.

Already, he argued, arid lands are expanding, glaciers are receding, and Arctic sea ice is shrinking, driven by cycles of positive feedback, where melting leads to more warming of the exposed dark ocean water, which leads to more melting.

"As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer," Hansen said.

To forest ecologist Lee Frelich at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Hansen's argument that a lower stabilization target is safer makes sense.

"If you look at the paleological record, in the last interglacial period 110,000 to 120,000 years ago, the world was thought to have a climate that was two degrees warmer than today," Frelich said. "The oceans were 20 to 25 feet higher, but CO2 was only 290 ppm. I've always thought that if a CO2 content of 290 could cause that, why won't it do it now? Maybe there's just a lag time."

"I'm sympathetic to a more aggressive goal," said glaciologist Jay Zwally of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The goal that people have adopted of keeping it to a total of two degrees [Celsius] rise since the preindustrial is still going to allow enough warming that we'll have an even more significant impact than we've already seen," he said.

While other scientists agree that 350 ppm is a safer target that increases the likelihood we will avoid many of the negative effects of climate change, some also think it's unrealistic.

"Three hundred and fifty is impossible," said climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. "We're going to overshoot 350 and 450 and probably 550, though I sure hope not."

Schneider's hope is that while it might still be 20 years before actions to reduce CO2 emissions really have an effect, innovations over the next two decades will make it possible to dramatically reduce emissions.

"My cynical scenario is that there will be more Katrinas, massive fires, melting of the Arctic, and people will say, 'Oh my God, what have we done. We'd better undo this,'" he said. Such catastrophes could finally spark the dramatic change that's needed, he suggests, if we don't take action sooner of our own accord.

"I try not to talk about a threshold of two degrees," Schneider added. "At 1.8 the world is not fine. At 2.2, we don't turn into a climatic pumpkin. We just have more severe events. The object is not to get hung up on the numbers. The object is to get out there and get solutions."

Others agreed.

Nevermind the Tipping Point

"Time is of the essence here. I don't know if targets like 350 ppm are that useful," said John Harte of the University of California, Berkeley. "We can't make a regulation on something we can't control. We don't regulate temperature, and we don't even regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, we control what our automobiles look like. We control the efficiency of our devices. We control what our energy looks like."

"I'm not so enthused about the concept of the tipping point," he added. "My view is that we've probably passed some tipping points. We've entered some realms of irreversibility. There are probably many more, but we don't know where they are."

"We know that if we don't take action, it will be a disaster," he said. "That's all we need to know."

Whether they focused on thresholds or not, the scientists all agreed that the problem is urgent and that not doing anything will lead to disaster: rising sea levels, food shortages, spread of infectious diseases and extinctions.

Starting From Here...

Hansen argued that to achieve the target of 350 ppm, we need to put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants and phase out burning coal without capturing and storing the carbon.

While scientists agree that coal is a huge part of the problem, they also emphasized the need to apply every available sensible strategy to address the problem.

"There seems to be an emphasis on coal and a distraction from other things we can be doing as well," NASA's Zwally said.

"Some people think that climate change is just about saving a few rare species, and it's just environmentalists making a fuss," Frelich said. "That's really not it."

"It's really about the quality of life for people," he continued. The Earth has been through many big changes before. There have been big extinctions, and new species have evolved to fill the ecosystems. It's not a big deal to the Earth's ecosystems, but it will be a really big deal for the quality of life of humans."

Frelich points out that right now the best soil for growing crops in the United States aligns ideally with the right climate for agriculture. But if the favorable climate moves north, it will be over Canada in an area where bedrock lies at the surface, stripped of soil by the last glaciation.

"If the best climate for growing crops lines up with the Canadian shield, that's an issue for people," he adds.

The scientists also pointed out that countries that tackle this most aggressively will be the winners, regardless of what other nations have committed to.

"The economic giants of the rest of this century are going to be the nations that are selling wind turbines and solar panels and efficient cars to the rest of the world," said Harte. "I would think we'd want to be the leader in that."

"Solving this problem is technologically and economically not that difficult," Harte added. "It's proving to be politically difficult."

(Image: "Wildfire Landscape" by Flickr user Clinton Steeds, some rights reserved.)

Comments

[Mike]

Have scientists determined that the ideal temperature for the earth is that of 1900 or of 2000? Or, maybe 1776 is the temperature that we should shoot for? Do we know over the past 10 million years, at what point the earth was at the best possible temperature? How can we lock in that temperature and stop it from changing ever again?

[Richard]

We could start right now by lowering the speed limits dramatically in this country and becoming bicycle friendly along with relaxing the federal saftey standards so we could actually have very small vehicles.

[Pat]

The average temperature has been dropping since 1998. What is the problem? All I can think, it is a desire to raise taxes.

[JUSTADDWATER]

I say we start packing our bags and head out to mars I just hope they have a vehicle transfer service my hummer H2 would do better off roading on mars ;)

[Buddy]

Let's see...so the countries that jump on board first win. Sooo...let's see..if the U.S. unilaterally controls its CO2 emissions then global warming will not effect us if China and Russia do nothing about their CO2 emissions. Let's see...if we shut down all of our coal fired energy plants tomorrow then nobody will freeze to death in the winter or die of heat stroke in the summer because, wind energy and solar will fill the gap right now. And our economy will cruise along like normal. Oh I get it...we can use wind and solar and geothermal to run our cars, trucks, tractors, trains and planes and of course factories, etc. Hey I'll buy a new wind car right now, where can I get one of these fabulous machines.

There may very well be a climate change issue, but I refuse to empty my pockets or jump on this giant hand puppet band wagon until we better understand what climate change means. The likes of Hansen and Gore have so mis-informed us (32 factual errors in Gore's Nobel winning "Inconvenient Truth") about what climate changes means that it has become the biggest boy calling wolf in history. There is ample information throughout the net that cautions that we DO NOT know what climate change means. Indeed there are very bright scientists who have been cast aside who can very intelligently tell a very different story from that of Hansen and the non-scientist Gore. Why do we NEVER EVER hear anything about at least one positive of this so called Global Warming. Rather all we here is devestation and death as the only possible outcome and it is going to arrive sometime next Tuesday afternoon.

So raise your hands high in the air and run around shouting as loud as you can "the world is ending, the world is ending" and surely that will fix it. Shut down the coal plants, shut down the interstates and buy bicycles, ground our airplanes, turn off your lights and heat and air conditioning, electricity. Shut down your businesses. Tell the Chinese and India and the Russians we will nuke them if they don't do the same.

Build wind mills and wind cars and solar plants and solar planes. Banish natural gas and oil and nuke plants and coal. Shut down the economy of the world. We can do it, I know we can.

Screw all of them I'd rather die happy than put up with the whinning of Hansen, Gore and their useful idiot friends.

Your Pal Buddy

[Anthony Vicari]

@Buddy: No need to be so incendiary. You'd win more converts with a more cool-headed approach, if indeed your facts are as solid as you claim. No one in their right mind is advocating the immediate shut-down of all fossil fuel use. That is madness. It was fossil fuels that got us to the point of being able to envision a prosperous world even without fossil fuels.
No, you can't have a wind turbine on a car powering the car. But solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear can provide electricity and can also be used to make synthetic fuels of many types (not just hydrogen but also hydrocarbons) from atmospheric gases, enabling CO2-free driving and CO2-free power to your home.

Right now the problems are awareness, up-front cost and manufacturing capacity. Consider: man-made buildings cover about 3% of the Earth's land surface. That means the solar power landing on our buildings, averaged over a whole year, is about one petawatt. Even with 10% efficient solar PV (most home systems are closer to 20%), even if we converted the electricity all to hydrogen by hydrolyzing water (minimum 50% efficiency with today's technology) before using it in 50% efficient fuel cells (less than what are being put in fuel cell cars today) to make electricity or to power vehicles, that would give us 25 terawatts of power, all usable energy in the form of a lightweight, transportable, storable fuel. Today, the worlds total annual primary energy consumption- the energy content of all fossil fuels, nuclear fuel, and renewable energy used every year, before taking account the inefficiency of converting it to electricity or burning it in vehicles- is 15 terrawatts. Actual usable power(in the form of electricity- about 2TW- or in work done to accelerate vehcicles) is more like 4 terrawatts.

So even if there were almost no advancement in our technology, which is essentially a zero probability event, we could, if we chose to, use entirely renewable energy to provide many times the amount of power the world is currently using, 24/7, 365.24 days a year with no increased land usage, no CO2 emissions, no strip mining or blowing the tops off mountains, no soot clouding the skies of the developing world, no smog over our cities here or anywhere else. Look at human history- every time the available amount of energy increases, we improve economically. Also, look at the world today. The wealthy do not tend to go to war with each other, or to harbor terrorists, or to commit acts of genocide. With plenty comes peace.

"Solving this problem is technologically and economically not that difficult," Harte added. "It's proving to be politically difficult."- this is one of the truest statements I've heard spoken about global warming. But even if you believe climate change is not a threat to humanity, understand that the economic potential in non-fossil fuel energy far exceeds anything fossil fuels has or ever could deliver. And notice that even the numbers I wrote above are easily possible with off-the-shelf (and not even the best quality we have) technology.
If you look at wikipedia's article on Earth's energy budget, you'll notice that the solar power reaching the earth's surface is about 120000 terrawatts. Geothermal can in principle provide 23 terrawatts sustainably. It is estimated that for nuclear fuel (non-renewable) there are about 2.4*10^24 Joules of energy in uranium deposits, three times as much in thorium deposits (for which reactors could be built pretty easily, since like uranium is is a fissile material- and thorium produces very little radioactive waste), and many times more in deuterium in the oceans if we can manage to get a controllable, energy-producing sustained fusion reaction. By contrast, it is believed that the total energy remaining in all the world's known and unknown fossil fuels is about .4*10^24 Joules- just one-sixth of the amount in uranium alone. Humanity has outgrown fossil fuels. There are better, more abundant sources of energy and if we wish to continue to grow and become more prosperous, we need to take advantage of them. Let us ween ourselves off the baby bottles of oil and coal and natural gas and go for the big prizes that lie ahead.

[John]

Does anyone know where I can get one of those nifty pinwheel beanies? Or maybe a kit to attach a little solar panel to my brockabrella, in case the annoying wind stops blowing...

Just look carefully at the ice and geological findings & you will notice that increased atmospheric/ocean carbon levels lag solar warming.

Remember, Mars also is undergoing solar warming at the moment, so Earthly atmosperic/ocean carbon levels are going to increase as we warm as well. That's life as we know it.

But if beyond all reason we take the luxury of humouring this inconvenient political "manmade global warming" hysteria, a practical bridge is needed until the technology is invented for a solar/battery energy economy.

A methanol economy could do it (and free the world from its oil addiction in the bargain), but you'll need to get behind The Brownbeck flex-fuel bill to begin to create the necessary markets.

[Rick]

"Humanity has outgrown fossil fuels. There are better, more abundant sources of energy and if we wish to continue to grow and become more prosperous, we need to take advantage of them. Let us ween ourselves off the baby bottles of oil and coal and natural gas and go for the big prizes that lie ahead."

I couldn't agree with Anthony Vicari more. However, oil companies and auto mfgs are at the top of the list of folks that will not allow anything to change in the way of oil consumption. We have already come up with many feasable and affordable options, yet we see no movement in their direction. Should we do so, how many people in the oil business would not have a job? What would they do with all those oil barges (their not cheap, you know). Try to imagine how expensive it would to re-tool the auto makers factories for something other than gasoline. What would they do with all the engine parts scattered in corners of NAPA and other parts stores?

Let's face it. The people with all the money have stock in oil companies, if they are not the oil companies themselves. It ain't gonna happen, folks. It's nice to dream but the lobbyists with the most money ain't gonna let it happen. If they did, they would be out of a job. The wheels go round and round and I'm afraid gasoline is the propellant for a very long time to come.

[reggie]

Year 0 - The sky is falling.....wait

Year 10 - The sky is falling.....wait

Year 20 - The sky is falling.....wait

So Mr. Little, I mean Hansen, what do you think

[Jay]

Turbines in the Gulfstream Duh!!!!!!!

[blue7053]

ALL of the interglacials until the present, were intermediate phases of the ice ages: the temp went up, tipped and collapsed into another cold phase. This time was different. As CO2 climbed to the tipping point -260- it stopped and angled off to some vague equilibrium. During this first stable period in the past million years, this magical time, Man went from the Stoneage to the Stars. Then.....on the way.....we burned 30 million years of stored carbon in one hundred years.
Sometimes I think about our IQ's. Average is 100 and the range extends from about 50 to about 150. Maybe if the average were 150 we would be smart enough to run a planet. I don't know. Mine is 150 and I don't think I could do it.
I'm not studying Climate Change anymore. I have studied the Earth for ten years but I've moved on. I'm studying 'systems'. Food distribution, political, social...These will be the first things to fail. They have no foundation in fact, in reality. They are our survival mechanisms but they will be the first and the last things to fail.

[John Garst]

The idea that all scientists believe in global warming is just ludicrous. Check out the new book, http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211560816&sr=1-1

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so (Hardcover)

[Janus Jones]

I for one will be quite happy once the US breadbasket is a desolate wasteland for people like Pat and Justaddwater to drive their stupid Hummers around in.

Also, on an unrelated note, think about it: The Canadian shield becomes prime farming land. Not much will grow in that kind of soil.

So, what does Canada produce that is of great quality and abundance and yet is such a versatile plant it will grow in the shield, almost like a...weed?

Hint, BC illegally exports $4 billion worth a year...

[E H Graham]

James Hansen did address Congress 20 yrs ago. He did warn of climate change. However, he warned of global cooling!
A minor omission in your story!

[Alec K]

I'm tired of people who say we don't know. Really tired of it.

I know about the uncertainty regarding whether we are the cause of global warming, whether or not it is happening. I myself entertain these ideas. We may very well not be experiencing anything that is not the "norm" in the life cycle of our planet. However, in my view, this does not mean we should sit back and not take action. I think everyone would agree that in the end, there is no harm done by taking action under the assumption that it IS happening and we ARE the cause. Sustainability is economically sound, life and culture promoting, and ultimately pretty easy if everyone does their share. What's not to like?

WE MUST ACT NOW.

[felo]

nobody said a word about the aumount of people and its influence in this enviromental trend?

[Seven Fires]

Looking at the way governments and mega-industrial groups think and operate I have a major concern regarding Arctic warming. There is much talk about, and the start of serious action in, preparing the Northwest Passage for commercial sea traffic, including Arctic port developments with road/rail links to them, once the Arctic sea ice relents sufficiently to make this route economically viable. Naval architects are working on post-Panamax ice-class vessel designs and myriad commercial ventures from all around the world are eyeing the reduction in transit time between Europe and the Far East through the dollar signs imprinted on their contact lenses. There is huge infrastructural investment on the table for resource extraction in the hitherto fore "frozen north". Governments are already puffing out and pounding their chests in displays of territorial claims as the intoxicating fragrance of expansion of wealth and control fills their dilated nostrils.

With governments and industry becoming so excited and committed to the exploitation of the previously climatologically protected northlands, where will be their incentive to do all they can to reverse the process of Arctic thawing that is affording them this opportunity to further exercise and satisfy their insatiable greed. Green initiatives surely fly in the face of investing in capitalizing on the opportunities of shrinking polar ice; of exploiting the long term commercial benefits of what is already starting to be so disastrous for our planet and all the beings that share it.

If governments and industry were sincere about a long term commitment to slowing and, hope of hopes, eventually neutralizing humankind's influence on climate change then surely they wouldn't be investing so heavily in long term capitalization of the impacts of it. To portray themselves as respectable leaders concerned with the re-greening of our pressence and impact upon this planet must surely be a scam of Mugabeistic stature on a global scale with dire and far reaching consequences for all the earths peoples, no matter how many legs they may or may not have or whether their skin be black, white, red or yellow, or covered with bark, scales, fur or feathers.

It would be interesting to hear the mercenary spin-doctors hired by the politicians and industrialists involved in the Arctic arena rationalize Arctic capitalization and exploitation strategies with their politically correct green-speak on the subject of global warming.

[traccoon]

Why is it so hard to acknowledge all of the scientist (32,000+) who disagree with man made global warming? http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/32000-scientists-disagree-with-global-warming/

Every time I read one of these stories, they present one side and ignore the other.

If all of the scientist agree on one thing, it does not make it true. An example is the plate tectonics theory in the 1950’s. Almost all of the scientists said the continents did not move, and they were wrong.

[Cal]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Here this. There is no such thing as a perfect fuel. They ALL pollute or have some unwanted side effect. Let's the cleanest fuel imaginable, hydrogen. Even if we have ulimited cheap hydrogen, there are problems. What can it possibly be, you ask? On paper, hydrogen is the perfect fuel, i.e. light weight, high BTU content and most important of all, burns cleaner than any fuel known today. The only thing coming out of the exhaust of your car will be water vapor. Think about this. The burning of a gallon of liquid hydrogen emits 5 pounds of water vapor. For a 20-gallon tank, that would be 100 pounds of water vapor per tank full. Multiply that times tens of millions of cars, and you are raising the dew point of the air. That translates into more rain, more frequent storms, more and stronger hurricanes and flooding which would make the midwest floods and Katrina look mild. If you believe CO2 exhaust can alter climate, you cannot ignore this fact. The question is, do you want global warming or do you want unprecedented flooding and record hurricanes? It's your choice.

[traccoon]

E H Graham:

The cost in trying to solve this it to high (hundreds of billions of dollars). I can not agree to do so. I can not afford the increase in my energy bill nor the increase in the cost of goods.

p.s. If China and India do not implement Kyoto and we do, our factories will move there and most likely pollute more. This is happening in Europe.

[Traccoon]

E H Graham: My apologies, my comments were directed at Alec K.

Alec K please see my above statement.

[Jamie Henn]

Jessica,

Thanks for a great blog. I wanted to let you (and all you readers, although from some of the comments, I'm not sure they'll be interested) about a campaign I co-coordinate based on Hansen's number: 350.org.

Take a look at our website - it's translated into 8 languages - and a short video about the number 350 and our campaign.

http://www.350.org.

Cheers,
Jamie

[EZ]

"Solving this problem is technologically and economically not that difficult," Harte added. "It's proving to be politically difficult." Well said. We've driven cars and played golf on the moon; we're soil testing on mars; heck, we can contemplate our ability to contemplate our existence. The time to rise up to our new challenges is indeed, now. We can do it and quite honestly, I believe we will. Time to put the apathy, cynicism, skepticism and resignation aside, stop pointing fingers and get to work. We all want the same thing: the meaningful, satisfying and happy life... Can't exactly achieve that if we're not around. Stay strong peeps; we can do this!

-Ezra

[Anti-hippi]

Is the so called "greenhouse effect" proven or is it only a theory ? I've read so much about it being the cause of global warming but have never seen a single proof of its existence, like an experiment.

[Mike]

It is past time that an technical expert with showmanship did a dog and pony show like Gore did. Most of us now know that Gore did us a disservice with his good show, bad facts video and made a lot of money. How about someone doing a similar show to explain that things aren't as bad as as Gore would have us believe. And for heaven's sake, present facts not fiction.