Stop lying to your fans. They are beginning to figure it out. Watch:
Tag Archives: Climate Change
Genie Scott: Denialism of Climate Change and Evolution
Here is a presentation by Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.
Far more people are climate change deniers than evolution deniers, but both camps use similar strategies to promote their views. Genie Scott explores the connections, the similarities, and the divergent ideologies. Where: New York. When: 10/23/2011. Hosted by the New York City Skeptics.
Putting the 400 ppm CO2 thing in perspective
Before the release of vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere mainly through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of this gas was about 300 ppm or a bit more. Soon, that number will be 400 ppm. How soon? Let’s see … it is now Tuesday at about 7pm. Maybe mid morning tomorrow? Maybe early next week? In fact, there have been one or two readings over the last few weeks that have registered above the 400 ppm mark.
So, this is important because humans have officially increased the concentration of this key greenhouse gas by a third. That’s a big deal.
Having said that, I’d like to be the first person to say the following because you’ll be hearing this form climate science denialists sooner or later anyway.
Aside from the long term trend of increasing CO2, there is an annual variation as well. Over the course of the year, CO2 moves in and out of the atmosphere on a fairly regular schedule. Surely, you’ve seen the famous Mauna Loa graph, this one cribbed from Wikipedia:
There is a lot more land in the Northern Hemisphere that goes through a dramatic cycle in plant activity, with most plants playing (or even being) dead over the winter and springing to life in the Spring. The Southern Hemisphere has much less land. So a small amount of CO2 moves into the atmosphere over the Northern Hemisphere winter and into spring, and then moves back into newly grown plant tissue during the northern growing season.
So, right now, CO2 should be at a short term peak. The range of this variation is around 8 ppm, so if we hit, say, 401 ppm next week, expect that value to go back below 400 ppm in a few weeks. In other words, we can and should note that we are probably hitting the 400 ppm barrier, but then later when we drop slightly below, temporarily, 400ppm, the climate science denialists will be all over that claiming that there is no global warming. Cuz they’re morons.
In a few years … certainly by the end of the present decade …. the low values will be over 400 ppm unless something dramatic happens.
The National Center for Science Education and Climate Change
Published on Apr 30, 2013
Science education is under assault again. Not just evolution education, but climate change education. NCSE policy director Dr. Minda Berbeco traces the history of science denial, the links between evolution- and climate change deniers, recent legislation targeting both, the role of the Next Generation Science Standards, and more. Where: East Bay Atheists, Berkeley, CA. When: 4/21/2013
UFO’s, Climate Change, Child Abuse
What do UFO’s, the belief that magnetism causes climate change but atmospheric gasses are not related, child molestation, and academic sock puppeting have in common with sea level rise? To find out, set aside some time to carefully read this: UFOs, Sea Level Rise And The Magnetism Of Climate Science Denial and then click on this.
Photo Credit: Jofre Ferrer via Compfight cc
Bangladesh and Sea Level Rise
You’ve all heard about the horrible tragedy in Bangladesh, still unfolding. Not to distract from that event, or diminish its importance, I thought it would be interesting to have a look at that low lying country in relation to long term sea level rise caused by climate change. I am making no claim here about the maximum rate of sea level rise or about the timing of sea level rise. But the truth is, there have been times in the past when there was virtually no year round ice (glaciers) anywhere on this planet, and sea levels were much higher than they are now. During a time period not too different from the present (probably not as warm, or just about the same) sea levels were several meters (maybe about 6 meters) higher than they are now, suggesting that even under current conditions a lot of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt. In other words, there is an argument that even if we curtail global warming now and keep things at their current somewhat warmed up level ice may continue to melt enough to raise the sea by meters. If we continue to warm the atmosphere and the oceans, the total sea level rise could be much, much higher.
Using the interactive map here, let’s look at Dhaka, the site of the recent and ongoing tragedy in Bangladesh. This is appropriate because it is the first world thirst for goods and luxury that produces both sweat shops like the one that just collapsed, killing hundreds of workers, and that produces global warming that will also produce catastrophic sea level rise.
Here’s a map of the area now, showing the local terrain:

If the entire Greenland Ice Sheet melted (but nothing else), or if a bunch of Greenland and a bunch of Antarctica melted, to produce about 7 meters of sea level rise, this is what the map would look like:
This is not what the region would look like, actually. The sediment here is all soft delta material what would be eroded away horizontally in no time. Another way to think about this is that if the sea went up just a meter or two, this entire region would probably be eaten away by horizontal erosion very quickly. Anyway, let’s add some more water and see what this first approximation would look like. Imagine if the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets both contributed maximally to sea level rise. This would be the minimal result:
If all the glacial ice in the world melted, and sea levels rose to the maximum height they’ve ever been, our closeup look of the region would look like this:
As you probably know, Bangladesh is one of the lowest elevation larger countries in the world. In fact, it seems like Bangladesh is defined almost entirely by its topography; Bangladesh is the delta. If we take the same maximal sea level rise as in the last graph, and step back a ways to see the effect at large scale, this is what we get:

By the way, there’s a cool book coming out on the topic, Rising Seas: Past, Present, Future.
Photo Credit: joiseyshowaa via Compfight cc
James Hansen’s Legacy
James Hansen, author of “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About The Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity“, recently announced his retirement from his position as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. My friend John Abraham write’s about Hansen’s retirement in his inaugural* post in the new blog “Climate Consensus – The 97%” …
What does this mean for climate science and the future of the Earth? It is impossible to know now but instead of looking forward, I want to shine a light on what Jim has done for climate science, what he signifies to the larger public, and how he is viewed by current and upcoming scientists.
John’s post is here: What’s climate scientist James Hansen’s legacy? As the scientist ‘retires’ from his duties at Nasa, John Abraham assesses the impact of a climate change leader. Ho have a look.
*An earlier post at the Guardian by John has been prepended to this new blog, but this is the first post by him since the blog came into existence last week.
Photo from the Guardian story.
The Truth About Global Warming’s Famous Slowdown
Dana Nuccitelli writes:
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That’s the global warming that we’re frequently told isn’t happening.
That’s Dana’s opening paragraph in the inaugural blog post in a new two-person blog called Climate Consensus – The 97% which started up today at The Guardian. The other blogger is my friend John Abraham.
Both of these authors are climate scientists. Dan is famous for his work at Sketpical Science Blog, and John is famous for his wrangling with Lord Viscount Fakir Christopher Mockable-ton of the United Kingdom. This is going to be a good blog.
Click here to see the first post and learn about how global warming is really, honestly, truely continuing despite all this crap you may hear about a hiatus.
Does last Saturday’s record low at MSP signal the end of global warming?
No, it does not
We’ve had a winter-like spring here in Minnesota, and it was darn chilly on Saturday. In fact, we had a record low of 21F.
Paul Douglas, of Weather Nation did some digging: He tells us that while that was the first record low since 2004, there have been 42 record highs since Januray 1st of that year. The highs win. The Twin Cities is warming, and in this regard, we are not atypical! Global warming is real, folks.
Arctic Sea Ice Loss Due to Global Warming
Andy Lee Robinson’s latest visualo-info-graphico-depiction of the loss of Arctic Sea Ice:
“Denialism on a Large Scale”
“Denialism on a Large Scale” Greg Laden on Atheists Talk #214, April 14, 2013
I was interviewed on Minnesota Atheists Talk Radio about climate change and climate change denialism last Sunday AM. Since you were in church, I’m sure you missed it! But you can catch the podcast HERE.
Why is winter not ending?
Why is it snowing so much in the Northern US States this Spring? Two words: Global Warming. Let me ‘splain.
Weather is all about air and moisture. The distribution of air is uneven, with some places having more air in big piles, other places having less air, into which the extra air from the big piles of air tends to spill. The big piles form because the surface beneath is relatively warm, causing the air to expand more than in adjoining areas. As air falls off these giant mounds of seeming nothingness, it forms low pressure systems that consist of swirling moving masses, made up of air of different temperature and humidities, and this is where many storms come from. Where the high mounds of air form depends on the seasons; since it is the relative temperature that matters, we might expect high pressure systems (mounds of air) to form over water during the winter and land over the summer with the low pressure systems being located over the opposite landform, but it is of course way more complex than that.
Using this simplified model of piles of air pouring into low spots, one can understand the climatic concept of “oscillations.” There are large regions of the earth where high pressure tends to form, and spill its air in a certain direction. That air, somewhat cooled off, may then return to the area of the high pressure where it is re-warmed (by surface conditions) to contribute to the high pressure mound. If this happens over the ocean, the movement of air may also drive the movement of surface currents, which can actually increase the level of heat at the base of the high pressure system. If the earth was simple, i.e., had no continents and a sea of even depth over the entire surface, high and low pressure systems might form and last for very long periods of time, merely changing slightly during seasonal changes. Also, since the overall driving force of the climate system involves the movement of heat (in water and air) and the warm water and air itself from equatorial regions (where the sun has a stronger effect) to the poles, and the earth is spinning, this set of high and low pressure systems should be organized in bands encircling the planet, bands that interact with each other at their edges.
As long as we are on the subject we should note that the Jet Streams can be thought of as places where the dynamics of air hearting, rising, thus becoming less dense and releasing heat (and thus becoming more dense per altitude) and so on and so forth runs into a nasty math problem. If you model (again, I oversimplify) the movement of air molecules that are passing through different conditions of altitude, pressure, temperature, etc. there are places where the math seems to get hinkey, and there are air molecules that are definitely not supposed to be where they are, and there are places where there should be more air molecules as well. This causes air molecules to move very quickly from point A to point B, and the result is a set of high altitude, sinuous very rapidly moving bands of air … the Jet Streams. These tend to occur at the boundaries of the hypothetical (but rarely actualized in any clean and neat way) bands of air that would exist around a simplified version of the earth.
And, of course, the earth is not simple; there are continents, mountain ranges, huge glaciers or ice fields, areas where water in the sea is trapped by continental configurations so it gets extra warm and other areas where currents can circumnavigate a land mass pretty easily and redistribute heat efficiently. You have probably already heard that the dynamics of land ice and sea ice formation and melting in the Arctic and the Antarctic are different. Knowing what you know now (see above) a quick glance at the distribution of land and sea in those two regions should lead you to conclude that the Arctic and Antarctic simply can not have the same climatic details, even though both are polar regions.
Getting back to the oscillations… So, we have these areas which may for years at a time have high pressure in one place linked to an adjoining lower pressure in another area, and air and water currents are both affected by and cause this relationship. But, it is also possible that a different configuration could emerge, perhaps with the same basic layout but with the high pressure zone moving to a somewhat different location nearby, or being more widely or narrowly positioned. Then, this alternative configuration could last a few years.
It is the shifting back and forth between two (or more) such configuration that we call an oscillation (usually). ENSO, the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, is one such system in the equatorial pacific. There is a North Atlantic Oscillation and an Arctic Oscillation, and others.
Very simply put, the fact that we are having coldish and snowy weather in the Dakotas, Minnesota, and nearby areas at the same time that the Arctic Sea’s ice is breaking up and melting early is because the Arctic Oscillation … a big giant climatic feature at the northern end of the Earth, is undergoing its “negative” phase, which is kinda rare, instead of its “positive” phase, which at least in the recent past has been more common.
So, what the heck does this have to do with climate change, or in particular, global warming?
Global warming has caused the Arctic Ocean to lose much more of its ice than it has in the recorded past, which leaves more sea water exposed to sun during the Arctic summer. Sea water absorbs (and later releases) sunlight and stores it as heat, while ice and snow reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere and onward into space. For this reason, the Arctic Ocean is warming, and this causes ice to form more slowly and melt more quickly, which in turn allows the summer ice free waters to absorb more heat, and so on and so forth. The Arctic Ocean’s ice cover, which expands every winter and shrinks every summer, is undergoing a sort of climatic death spiral that looks like this:
Remember the part above about how surface conditions determine the location, intensity, and extent of high and low pressure systems? During the “positive” phase of the Arctic Oscillation, highish pressure systems around the Arctic maintain a large low pressure region known as the Arctic Vortex, over the pole. But the Arctic Ocean, being warmer, says “hold on there, a second, I’m also a high(ish) pressure system, stop vortexing me!”
The high pressure region that encircles the Arctic during the positive phase backs off (goes south) and is less effective in maintaining a nice vortex over the Arctic. The strong gradient between a sub-arctic high pressure encircling the polar region and the strong polar vortex, during the positive phase of the oscillation, keeps colder Arctic air near the poles, and regions like the Great Lakes, Upper Plains, and Norther Eurasia enjoy warmer weather. With the weaker gradient during the negative phase, the Arctic air spreads out and encompasses more of the subarctic and temperate land masses, but the cold, as it were, is now distributed over a much larger region, so is it less cold in places that would otherwise be very cold, and less warm in places where it would be more warm.
One analogy that has been knocked around a bit and works pretty well is the traditional refrigerator, with a freezer on top, and the fridge below. Imagine that your refrigerator occasionally develops a modest hole between the two compartments. The freezer would still be colder because there are more cooling coils up there, but it would not be as cold and your ice would be wet and your frozen beans soft, while skims of ice would form on your milk and cranberry juice. In real live, this means that North Dakota bets to be slushy cranberry juice, wile the Arctic Ocean gets to be a bunch of soft, barely frozen Freeze-Pops.
The region of colder air is not a uniform, even circle around the poles in any case, but during the negative phase, it is very uneven because the oceans have a strong effect. Since the oceans are busy moving large amounts of heat from the equator to the north, the cold tends to get bunched up over the continents. In the North Atlantic, changes in the Arctic Oscillation interact with the North Atlantic oscillation and that affects weather in that region.
You’ve already heard that changes in the Arctic likely contributed to the path (and strength) of Hurricane Frankenstorm Sandy last year. Well changes in the Arctic have resulted in some very snowy winters in recent times, some killer cold snaps, and most recently, a series of large winter storms that don’t seem to have gotten the memo about it being Spring. The Weather Channel just recently started naming regular storms like hurricanes are named, in order to keep track of them. Winter Storm Xerxes just passed through my back yard, and Winter Storm Yogi is now forming up on the West Coast.
We’re gonna need a longer alphabet.
Information about Winter Storm Yogi from Weather Underground.
More on the Arctic Oscillation from Paul Douglas
The Link Between Climate Change Denialism and Fundamental Christianity
I think the primary political framework for climate change denialism is Libertarianism, with a lot of overlap with Tea Partiers, who are essentially Libertarians Without Brains. Libertarians can’t live with the fact that their philosophy guarantees the misery and horrors of climate change so most of them (but not all) exist in full denial. At the same time, christian fundies are against climate change science because they are against science. Fundamentalist and Atheist Libertarians overlap in the area of climate science denialsim, and it is often strange to see that. We even see climate change denialists among organizations like JREF and other skeptical groups, and now and then I’ve seen those individuals allying with fundamentalist anti-science Christian-motivated denialists to attack scientists or science communicators.
Meanwhile, this is bizarre and disturbing at several levels:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
We’ve seen this sort of thing before many times (remember the guy in Washington State who wanted to create giant fans that would float around in the sky and cool things down?). Just thought you might want to see a current example so you know they are all still crazy.
Climate Scientist James Hansen’s Retirement
The famous climate scientist James Hansen, author of Storms of my Grandchildren, has just retired from his senior position at NASA. I’ll be the climate science denialists are breathing a sigh of relief to have Hansen, who has been instrumental in developing our current understanding of climate change and who has been repeatedly attacked by those denialists, out of the way. Here’s what he says about his retirement:
Oh. So, they are not getting rid of James Hansen after all. Oh well!
More information on Hansen’s retirement, future plans, and related things HERE.
What is climate sensitivity, why does it matter, and who’s got what wrong and why?
Climate sensitivity is the number of degrees C that the earth’s average temperature (of the atmosphere air and water on top of the “earth” per se) will increase with a doubling of “pre-industrial CO2” in the environment.
This is an important number … and it is a number, and to save you the suspense, the number is about 3 … because it tells us what the direct effects of the release of fossil Carbon (mainly in the form of CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels would be.
Here’s the thing. Climate change denialists would like the number to be 1, or some other number lower than 3. Well, we would ALL like the number to be low, but those of us interesting in actual science and truth and such things mainly want to have a good estimate of this important value. Climate change denialists want to pretend that the number is lower than it is, regardless of what that number may be.
A while back, an unpublished study was leaked that seemed to indicate, taken at face value, that the Climate Sensitivity Number was about 1.9. The study is flawed, and as I said, unpublished (as far as I know). But this gave all the climate science deniers tingly feelings and there has been a fair amount of talk about how this backs up the obvious lack of warming over the last decade, global warming isn’t real, etc. etc.
One of the more insidious forms of climate science denialism is the small number of writers, some editorial in nature, some bloggers, associated with mainstream publications like the New York Times or Forbes, who either don’t really understand the science, or do understand it but don’t care that it is science and not politics, that it is something that needs to be gotten right, and that if they make unsubstantiated claims about the science someone will notice and provide corrections. The Economist is one of these mainstream outlets that tends to pander to the business community and pushes out stuff that is just bad commentary. Recently, a piece in the economist got the whole “climate sensitivity” thing and made a number of rather embarrassing mistakes.
These mistakes have been corrected by Dana Nuccitelli and Michale Mann in “How The Economist Got It Wrong” on the ABC web site.
Go read that to get what The Economist messed up. Personally I find this morbidly humerous because all the actual economists I’ve ever known, and I’ve known quite a few, pride themselves on getting complex stuff like this right, but here, The Economist made errors you would not let a Middle School student do in a basic Earth Science project.
Anyway, there are two key things that Nuccitelli and Mann point out that relate to the bigger picture that I wanted to mention here. These have to do with both the question of the climate sensitivity factor and the idea, which is incorrect, that warming has stalled for a decade (or some other number of years).
1) There is a fair amount of internal variability in climate systems. For example, if you want to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and count how much we are adding, you can do that, but you have to account for the fact in the natural earth system, CO2 moves in and out of the atmosphere at several different scales of time (seasonally, over longer term oscillations, etc.) and you have to account for that. The unpublished paper failed to do so, but the point I want to make here is that climate scientists can in fact account for these things. I see a lot of people realizing that the climate system is complex and from this concluding that it is unknowable. It is actually complex and knowable. (See this for a peer reviewed paper related to the topic of variation, and this for recent work on the specific role volcanoes play.)
2) If you look at climate data longish term (over decades) the earth is warming and we are in a warm decade. If you look at only data for the earth’s atmosphere over the last decade or so, and close one eye and tilt your head and kind of squint, and pretend to not notice that most of the years in this decade are warmer than any prior average value, then you might see a bit of a flattening off of temperature rise. It would be nice if this was true. It would mean that global warming has slowed down despite the release of lots of CO2 into the atmosphere (never mind that the rate of release over recent years has gone down because of the economy). However, if you measure the ocean and air together, you get a different picture. The heat that ends up on the earth because we circle the sun at 93 million miles or so warms both the air and the sea, and the two interact (and the ground, too, but mostly the air and the sea). In fact, most of the extra heat from global warming goes into the sea. You have to measure both. When you do, global warming does not look like it has stopped. Also, we have recently discovered that an alarming amount of heat may be building up in the deep, cold sea. This heat is important.
Global warming. It is real. And, real important, despite The Economist getting it wrong.
Please go have a look at Nuccitelli and Mann’s piece, and in fact, spread it around. Tweet it, facebook it, G+ it, give it to your mom. It’s important.
Graphic from EDF