Is climate cooperating with global warming?

In the form of a self-opinionated blog post, author P.J. Gladnick gives a one-sided account of the news event that has stirred controversy concerning the global warming debate. In Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference, Professor Mojib Latif, from Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, stated that the Earth will soon be entering a period of cooling, one to two decades long. The recipient of international climate-study prizes and one of the lead authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Prof. Latif’s credibility is reliable. However, the issue arises when skeptics, such as Gladnick, use the claim of a single climate scientist to conclude that the threat of global warming - as a real issue that must be dealt with immediately - can be completely disregarded. In this way, skeptics become ignorant of the facts behind and beyond the single fact that satisfies their own opinions, and become an obstacle in the way of progress towards taking action against global warming.

Obviously targeting an audience whom he believes will wholeheartedly agree with him, Gladnick writes the blog post freely, unabashedly attacking global warming and environmental alarmists. He cites quotations from a blog by a New York Times writer Andrew Revkin and, using an openly sarcastic tone, he counters Revkin’s claims that global warming remains an issue with broad facts and selective quotes from Latif’s address. The sarcasm and spite used may please readers who are also skeptics on the issue, but it comes off as arrogant to others and, his claims, uncertain.

In the New York Times blog site, Revkin makes the following statement:

“Scientists say the last decade of climate stability — which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere…Dr. Mojib Latif…wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase.” (Revkin 2009).

Gladnik rebukes by making the following statements:

“Left unsaid is that maybe, just maybe, the rise in global temperatures in the 1990s were also the temporary result of cyclical variations in oceanic or other conditions.” (Gladnik 2009) and “And yet those "heat-trapping gases" seem to not be causing global warming.” (Gladnik 2009).

He chooses to ignore facts he quoted from Revkin himself. Scientists agree that the cyclical shifts in the oceans will create climate stability, but without effecting the long-term effects of global warming. The new information provided by Latif is that the shifts will in fact cause temporary global cooling - not climate stability. However, Latif does not disagree with the statement of the temporary nature of the climate caused by oceanic shifts, and it being unrelated to long-term global warming effects. As a matter of fact, there is an example that indicates cooling is a repercussion of global warming. Through the analysis of ancient moss samples in Newfoundland, researchers found that 8300 years ago, a 150 year long period of cooling in North America was the result of glacial ice melting, and the ocean’s sensitivity to the newly released freshwater (Ravilious 2009). Clearly, Gladnik did not look beyond Latif’s simple statement, or even into the quotations he chose to use in his blog.

When Revkin states: “Still, those projections are based on models, interpretations of tree ring variations and other indirect assessments of past temperatures that, while persuasive to most climate scientists, are not infallible.” (Revkin 2009); Gladnik replies: “Thank you for allowing the possibility that global warming proponents might not be infallible. It might be nice if you pass that word along to the governments of the U.S.A. and the rest of the world before they toss hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem which might not even exist.” (Gladnik 2009). This is yet another weak angle Gladnik uses in an attempt to strengthen his argument. It is a widely known fact that global warming is a scientific theory. But just like the Theory of Relativity in physics or the Atomic Theory in chemistry, it is based on empirical observations; it cannot be disregarded as fictitious just because it cannot be proven true.

What critics such as Gladnick fail to realize is that the threat of global warming is not solely an issue of increase of global temperatures, but of the change in climate itself and the impact it will have on the Earth. If it is true that the Earth will undergo a decade or two of global cooling, there is the possibility that the cooling is occurring as a result of global warming, and it can be said with near certainty that global warming has been intensified by human activity. Even skeptics should consider the undeniable impact of human activity on the future of the planet - whether it warms or cools.

References

Gladnik, P. (2009). NY times writer worries that mother nature not cooperating with global warming agenda. Newsbusters, 22 September 2009. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/22/ny-times-writer-worries-mother-nature-not-cooperating-global-warming-a. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Ravilious, K. (2009). Global warming could cool N. America in a few decades?. National Geographic, 14 September 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Revkin, A. (2009). Momentum on climate pact is elusive. The New York Times, 21 September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

More Rainy Days In Sight?

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+should+more+prepare+rainy+days+Study/1977318/story.html

In the Canada.com article “Canada should do more to prepare for rainy days: Study” (09 September 2009) the author, Darah Hansen, is reiterating a study done by Simon Fraser University. The main claim of this study is that Canadian should be ready for more rain and extreme weather in the coming years.

This issue with the claim is that there is very little evidence to support it. The only evidence in the article is given in a single statement, in particular:

“In the past year, Canada has seen its share of extreme weather: from heat waves and resultant forest fires in B.C., to tornadoes and hurricanes in southern Ontario and on the east coast, respectively; and heavy rainfall and cooler-than-normal temperature throughout much of the country.” (Hansen 2009)

The argument of the article seems to be that the future of Canada holds more severe weather and that all levels of Canadian government should take action and prepare the country for these events. The article also argues that not enough is being done and the country is unfortunately doing a poor job in dealing with the issue of climate change.

The evidence presented does not thoroughly support the claim being made. Although it may be true that these events have occurred, they are not isolated events. For instance, this past year did not have the first tornado touchdown in Canada. Environment Canada (2009) states that one of the most tornadic areas of Canada is southern Ontario. In the 1970s, a total of 12 hurricanes hit land in eastern Canada. There is a possibility of yearly fluctuation of weather patterns; therefore, the occurrences from one year will not necessarily establish themselves in following years. Furthermore, there is no actual evidence implying any increase of precipitation, instead the article touches on what the Canadian government ‘should’ do about the impending crisis.

Another factor that works against this article are the multiple sources of opposing ideas that go unaddressed in the article. Natural Resources Canada (2004) has published a map of Canada that demonstrates the percentage of change in precipitation from the period of 1961 to 1990 to the period of 2040 to 2060. This map shows that on average, precipitation rates will remain the same or decrease. As well Experience Canada: A Geography (2003) published:

“Overall, precipitation is down across the country, especially in winter. Lower snowfalls are causing water levels to drop in many of Canada’s freshwater lakes. In 2002, for example, the Great Lakes were more than one metre below normal levels.” (DesRivieres, Bain & Harshman 2003)

This article makes it very clear that the authors of the report wish to see the government’s involvement in the issue increase and this can be seen through the multiple quotes in the article. There are several sufficient ideas and recommendations listed throughout the article. For instance:

“The report argues it’s time policy-makers expand climate change action beyond efforts to decrease greenhouse gases, and look to reduce our collective vulnerability to weather changes.... Researches also suggest the country develop an integrated national public alerting system and a climate information service to better ensure emergency crews and individuals receive timely warnings of extreme weather hazards.” (Hansen 2009)

In conclusion, the headline of the article states that Canada should be prepared for an increase of precipitation, but there is no strong argument or evidence to convince the reader of need for this action. However, the article offers many valid suggestions and initiatives that can be put into place to prepare for the future. I think that these are very good suggestions and should be considered by those to which they are addressed to.


References

(2004, January 20). The Atlas of Canada. Retrieved from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/scenarios/nationalsummerprecip2050?scale=42051275.911682&mapsize=750%20666&urlappend=

DesRivieres, D, Bain, C. M., & Harshman, R. (2003). Experience Canada: A geography. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Hansen, D. (2009, September 09). Canada should do more to prepare for rainy days: Study. canada.com, Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+should+more+prepare+rainy+days+Study/1977318/story.html

Vegans For The Win?

In her article "Adopt A Lower Carbon Diet And Help Curb Further Global Climate Change" Heather Havey states that one of the key factors of global warming is our diet. She suggests that the corporations that run the food industry are neglectful of the environment, that agriculture and farming use too many resources and that we are living an unsustainable life filled with waste. Many of Havey's suggestions on improving this seem to be based towards a more sustainable lifestyle.
Havey first mentions the agricultural industry and corporations when she states "Our diet is one of the largest causes of green house gas emissions... estimates predict that one third of our green house gas emissions come from our food and agriculture industries." (Havey, 2009) Havey believes that the companies that run the food industry care more about growth and profit than the well being of the earth and its inhabitants. Havey says "...care for human and earth wellness falls second to the corporations own need for continual profit and growth.... the result of this competitive behavior and also, quite often, harmful choices that do not consider long-term health costs for people, animals, or the planet." (Havey, 2009) Havey suggests many very plausible solutions to the problem of corporate greed. Havey urges people to buy locally and not buy food that has been "imported from 1000's of miles away". She also suggests buying natural foods such as fruits and vegetables rather than packaged products to try and avoid the packaging factories and shipping implications.
Havey places a lot of the blame of climate change on the agricultural systems when she says things such as "...erosion or destruction of the soil... is the result of both the current methods of production but also often the inherent nature of required resources used to complete production process" (Havey, 2009) I don't believe this is entirely fair however, I believe it is unfair to assume that the agricultural system is insignificant. Havey suggests alternatives such as growing your own food or shopping locally at a farmers market. These seem like good suggestions in principle but prove quite impractical when you think on a larger scale. Not many people have access to gardens where they can grow their own food. The agricultural system is needed to assure that people who cant grow their own crops still have access to food and the demand is high. It is naive of Havey to prosecute the food industry for using large amounts of land and resources; after all, this industry is needed to feed large amounts of people. Perhaps a better alternative to the wastes of agriculture would be to try and develop new, more earth friendly methods of harvesting and farming rather than to remove many peoples access to vegetables and fruit completely.
Along with the inherent waste of land and resources that comes with farming and production, Havey also claims that the agricultural industry is intoxicating us all with pesticides and poison. Havey says "Conventional farming practices fill our landscape, our food and our bodies with toxic chemical residues." (Havey, 2009) Havey provides the example of studies that were done regarding breast milk. The article (NYT Magazine, January 9, 2005, "Toxic Breast Milk?" by Florence Williams) claims that some womens breast milk contained DDT (a banned pesticide which nearly wiped out the bald eagle, PCB's, dioxin, trichloroethylene, perchlorate, mercury, lead, benzene and arsenic. Havey claims that the practices which use pesticides are "transforming our bodies into toxic waste dumps" (Havey, 2009) This paints a grim picture of humanity's future.
The sustainable life is one which many people in todays society seem to have trouble obtaining. Havey touches on this aspect of life when she talks about the large amount of waste that people create every day. Havey says "Commercial restaurants throw away at least 54 billion pounds of food each year." (Havey, 2009) While the act of throwing food out does not, technically lead to global warming, it's consequences certainly do. The more waste there is means that more companies produce more products, only to be wasted again. This turns into a vicious cycle which many people find hard to resist. Havey suggests that the solution to waste is to simply compost our food and to not litter. This once again seems very naive to me. While it is depressing to think that recycling and composting are pointless, on the large scale, they both (composting especially) become very difficult. For example someone living in a city might not have access to a recycling facility or composting facility. Havey does make a good suggestion when she says to buy bulk foods and things such as fruits and vegetables to avoid the unnatural wastes such as plastic and metal.
Havey does provide solutions to the problems she brings forth, but I found her approach naive and I believe that many of her suggestions were not directly related to our diets but rather our life style. The problem of climate change, being a global one, cannot be fixed merely with a change in one person's life, nor a city's, nor a country's. We will only see change when the changes made are global. Havey provides solutions to the problems in a manner which I feel is naive and much too simple to be effective.

References
Havey, Heather (2009). Adopt a low carbon diet and help curb further global climate change. www.naturalnews.com, 31 July 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026737_food_carbon_heal th.html. Accessed 30 September 2009.

Why won't people act on climate change?

In his essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” recently published in New Scientist (23 July 2009), George Marshall makes the observation that despite the vast amount of scientific evidence pointing towards human-induced climate change, a majority of people in the developed world refuse to believe that the world is in fact warming, or else are apathetic to the entire issue. “Opinion polls”, he writes, “have shown that 40 per cent of people in the UK and 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.” Marshall, a climate scientist, notes that even many of his colleagues, those that make a career of studying climate change and its effects, appear unwilling to alter their lifestyles. States Marshall of the matter:

“I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I see it as proof of our society’s failure to construct a shared belief in climate change.” (Marshall, 2009)

Marshall is claiming that people reject climate change not due to a misunderstanding of the science behind it, but because there is no solid collective agreement about the issue. He then suggests two ways to help develop a shared belief in climate change: by selecting more trustworthy science communicators and developing a “collective imagination” about global warming.

I find at least three problems with Marshall’s claim, his suggestions to bring about change, and the overall implications of his solutions. First, I find Marshall’s dismissal of misinformation and scientific illiteracy as factors affecting people’s attitudes towards climate change to be contrary to the evidence. Second, his suggestions to bring about a shared belief in climate change are vague and provide little evidence to support their effectiveness. Finally, I consider Marshall’s overall solution to the problem of climate apathy – the generation of a shared belief – to be unrealistic and inappropriate for an issue such as climate change.

Like most of the challenges currently facing humanity, climate change has become a political issue as well as a social and scientific one. Environmentalism and concern about global warming are often considered “liberal” traits, and thus the opinions of many regarding climate change – especially in the United States – are found to be oriented with political affiliation. A quick scan of the main page of Conservapedia , an online conservative encyclopedia , reveals the headline: “While liberals use deceit to promote global warming, hedge fund managers are betting on the coldest winter in a decade.” In statements such as this, scientific accuracy (the difference between weather and climate) is disregarded so that the political message can be made clear. Those who adhere to such political views then readily accept the misinformation. Another source of distortion is industry. Journalist Bill McKibben writes:

“The energy sector needed to stall for time, so its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters...would have no...reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas.” (McKibben, 2005)

The media itself, in the interest of gaining an audience, has also contributed to the problem by exaggerating disagreements among climate scientists and devoting a disproportionate amount of time to the views of climate change denialists. It by now be clear that, contrary to Marshall’s claim, the deliberate distortion of the scientific truth has contributed greatly to the public’s understanding of climate change.

George Marshall argues that the development of a shared belief is the best way to incite action on climate change, and suggests two ways to it: make communicators between the scientists and the public more trustworthy, and establish a “collective imagination” about climate change. Given Marshall’s claim, these are worthwhile suggestions, but unfortunately he does little to flesh them out. Trustworthiness is an obvious requirement for convincing others, and Marshall does of an admirable job of listing the qualities that make an individual trustworthy. He recommends that climate scientists be more willing to pass on their information to more talented promoters, and singles out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an organization in need of charismatic representatives. However, no more specific ideas are put forth, leaving one wondering who exactly could fill the position (Al Gore comes to mind). Marshall’s second suggestion is that the public build a “collective imagination” and consider the future of a warmer world. This rather vague concept is not elaborated upon, and to describe how it may be brought about, Marshall only mentions collaboration between scientists and artists to appeal to peoples’ emotions. Neither preposition is supported by any examples of the methods succeeding in the past, nor do they contain any evidence suggesting whether or not they could be effective. After reading, one is left with the feeling that, while he has practical suggestions, Marshall has little idea as to how to carry them out, and as a result, his whole argument appears weak.

My final comment concerning Marshall’s essay is his overall assertion that a shared belief in climate change is necessary in order to bring about action. I consider this strategy to be unsuitable for the matter at hand. Marshall acknowledges that the term “belief” will not be liked by many scientists, but maintains that, despite scientific evidence, a person’s views will always be determined by their personal world view. Marshall’s world view, which he attempting to convert the general public to, is one that “respects scientists and empirical evidence”. It seems inappropriate then, that a thought structure based upon objectivity and rational inquiry should have to win converts through an appeal to emotions, as implied by Marshall. Science should not have to appeal to the emotions to make a convincing case, or it may run the risk of becoming less objective and more subject to personal opinions. In other words, science should exist independent of belief, and so a campaign of the kind proposed by Marshall, the development of a shared belief system, is inappropriate. The establishment of a shared belief system should also be considered an unrealistic expectation, for it contradicts natural human tendencies. Marshall’s vision is essentially a society dedicated to the common good, which is realistically unlikely. Climate change is a gradual process, and the full effects of global warming may take a lifetime to become fully pronounced. Why should people be expected to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles, if there is any immediate danger to their well-being, or any immediate rewards for doing so? “If climate change does not affect me personally, materially, or directly, why should I care?” reads a letter published in a subsequent issue of New Scientist in response to Marshall’s essay, “For the record, I don’t.” With attitudes like this, often bolstered by a misunderstanding of climate change propagated by the media, it seems inconceivable that Marshall’s shared belief could actually be achieved.

George Marshall has accomplished a courageous task in explicitly addressing the prevailing attitudes of apathy and denial with regards to climate change, even amongst his own peers. However, Marshall’s solution to the problem lacks specificity, and it does not cite successful previous applications of the methods, nor does it address misinformation as a major contributor to public opinion. Were I a perplexed layperson reading this essay hoping to gain insight into the complex matter of climate change, I would likely be dismayed. I would note that even the experts seem unwilling to act on climate change and, although there is the framework of a solution, it has not been fully fleshed out. Upon further reflection, I may realize that Marshall’s proposal of a shared belief is both unscientific and not a realistically attainable goal. Marshall’s essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” has made a first step towards a solution for climate apathy and denialism, but until that solution is more fully developed, the current sad state will remain: that when it comes to climate change, people just don’t care.

References

Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia. http://www.conservapedia.com. Accessed 29 September 2009.

Dixon, Tom (2009). Climate of apathy. New Scientist, 13 August 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.100-climate-of-apathy.html. Accessed 23 July 2009.

Marshall, George (2009). Why people don’t act on climate change. New Scientist, 23 July 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.900-comment-why-dont-people-believe-in-climate-change.html. Accessed 29 September 2009.

MicKibben, Bill (2005). Climate of denial. Mother Jones, May/June 2005. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/climate-denial. Accessed 29 September 2009.

Chill out on Climate Change?

In a Huffington Post article titled Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change (27 September 2009) Michael Shermer argues that Climate Change should not be at the top of the worlds priority list as greater focus is required for other global issues such as world hunger, disease, malaria, and water pollution. Furthermore, fighting climate change is not imperative and will simply cost too much.

Shermer seems to be under the assumption that climate change works like an on and off switch and that it can be dealt with at a later date and time. Unfortunately that is not the case. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions where to stop today global temperature will continue to rise and the effects of climate change will persist. There is a tipping point and it is approaching fast. Some scientists estimate that the tipping point is as early as 2025 and others say that we have already passed it. Nonetheless immediate action is necessary considering how much work is required in cutting green house gas emissions to appropriate levels. We have a small window of opportunity to deal with this unprecedented problem and as time goes on this window is gradually decreasing.

Another point Shermer makes is that fighting climate change will cost too much and is not worth the benefits. As Shermer referenced in his article the IPCC (United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) states that if the all countries that signed to the Kyoto Protocol met their standards it would cost $180 million annually. Another estimate done by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) states that rising global temperatures will have an impact of 3.8 trillion dollars by 2100 on the united states economy alone. It is obvious that the price of doing nothing is so much greater then taking immediate action. Alex Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics stated in an interview “if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it [tackle climate change] remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action.” Thus, the costs of cutting green house emissions will be very high however in comparison to the costs of doing nothing, it is relatively cheaper.

Shermer believes that there are other more pressing issues that need funding other then climate change. He speaks of the Copenhagen Consensus and other UN lists of world issues ranked in priority. Some that are ranking higher in priority than climate change are hunger, disease, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and water pollution. The complication is that the Copenhagen Consensus listed these issues considering that they had a hypothetical annual budget of $50 billion dollars a year to fight them. Many of these global problems listed can be simply dealt with by buying mosquito nets, micronutrients, condoms, and common medication. An issue that cannot be dealt with by simply throwing money at it is climate change, which is the reason it was ranked so low. Fighting climate change needs new advances in technology, riding the world of their addiction to fossil fuels, changing the way people consume, live, and think. Also many of the issues listed above will get worse with climate change especially water pollution and malaria due to rising sea levels and warmer temperatures. Shermer is undermining the importance of climate change with the fact that it cannot be easily fixed with simple funding and that is exactly why it is such a pressing issue.

Climate change needs to be dealt with now considering that temperatures will continue to rise even if the appropriate cuts to green house gases are made on a global scale. The effects of climate change will have huge cost implication on the world’s economy however acting now will be financially cheaper then when it is too late. There are many important global issues that do need attention but unlike climate change they may be dealt with by funding. Shermer recognizes and agrees that climate change is a problem but what he does not understand is the severity and the implications of climate change and how it will continue to get worse if nothing is done.

References

Carrington, Damian. "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chief says benefits of tackling climate change will balance cost of action | Environment | guardian.co.uk." Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk. 20 July 2009. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Johnston, Ian. "Global warming: Is it too late to save our planet? - Scotsman.com News." Scotsman.com News - Scottish news direct from Scotland. 17 Jan. 2006. 30 Sept. 2009 .

"NRDC: Press Release - New Report Finds Doing Nothing on Global Warming Comes with a Huge Price Tag." NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council - The Earth's Best Defense. 22 May 2008. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Patz, Jonathan A., and Sarah H. Oslon. "Malaria risk and temperature: Influences from global climate change and local land use practices." PubMed Central Homepage. 11 Apr. 2006. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Pearce, Fred. "Climate myths: We can't do anything about climate change - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. 16 May 2007. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Shermer, Michael. "Michael Shermer: Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 27 Sept. 2009. 30 Sept. 2009 .