 Understanding Global Warming Recognizing disinformation, protecting the future Where are we going from here?
It's natural for regional weather to change rapidly and be hard to forecast beyond several days, but does the same apply to global holocene climate? Or is now the time to act against the threat of strong, multi-generational warming?
As humans burn ever-greater amounts of fossil fuel (containing carbon removed over time from the prehistoric atmosphere), gigatons of carbon dioxide are accumulating beyond the absorption capacity of Earth's "carbon sinks". With this imbalance, the atmospheric concentration of CO² has increased 36% since industrialization, rivaling the much slower fluctuation of glacial-interglacial cycles, and taking levels to their highest in at least 650,000 years (Update: 800,000). Other studies (Pagani et al, Pearson & Palmer) suggest millions of years. And the trend continues (Update: Accelerates). So what's wrong with this change, and how can we improve the odds of ecological integrity and human prosperity into the future? First, a crash course on the basics. Although a small percentage of the atmosphere, CO2 is the primary persistent "greenhouse gas", re-radiating infrared energy over an atmospheric lifetime of up to 200 years (determined by various geological and biological processes). Significant perturbations, though, exceeding the carbon cycle's equilibrium, can last centuries and subside over millennia. Carbon dioxide plays vital roles in climate and the biosphere, but there can be too much of a good thing. An accumulation amplifies the heat-trapping greenhouse effect that keeps Earth's average temperature above zero. Intensive research suggests this is the main factor in a climatically strong warming trend, with much of the extra energy being absorbed and distributed by the oceans (their thermal inertia produces a lag between CO2 forcing and it's full atmospheric effect). This rise, subject to some fluctuation from things like ocean cycles and sulfate "aerosol", is extensive but not uniform, and it already exceeds anything in at least 1300 years.
Heat is the ultimate driver of the climate system. Effects on evaporation and precipitation, reflective ice cover, oceanic and atmospheric circulation (including to and from the Arctic), and storm intensity make "global climate change" a more complete descriptor of the situation. Protracted global warming is also subject to amplification by feedback effects, including reduced carbon storage (example), and the release of more greenhouse gas from oceans, forests and tundras. Higher wildfire incidence and the potential for greater CO2 and methane emission from thawing permafrost are examples. The influence of CO2 on water vapor levels and ocean acidity (and thus biology & carbon cycling) are other indirect effects. With an improved understanding of feedbacks, concern about climatic stability has grown. Global warming may not seem like an urgent problem in many temperate regions, where so far it has been subtle and mixed with significant variability. But delaying action means locking in stronger impacts, including on modern societies dependent on intensive agriculture and reliable resources. Unlike the natural events that have affected civilization in the past, this has the potential to cause lasting, widespread disruption. Yet we can limit it's progression and protect the biologically-rich interglacial that has helped humanity thrive. This will take a multi-national effort to cut significant emission sources like electric generation, animal agriculture, and transport. As well as technological development to handle change already underway. Considering the lags in both the climate system and societal response, it's time to get serious. Still, certain fossil fuel and ideological interests seek to cast doubt on strong science, or downplay the negatives while emphasizing limited regional benefits. A virtual industry of disinformation has arisen, similar to past efforts to deny the effects of cigarettes. In fact, some of the players in this campaign (below) also have Big Tobacco in their backgrounds. And their prestigious-sounding PR operations have had some success at delaying a stewardship approach. Addressing Some Common Questions & Arguments (Skip section)1• "But they can't even predict next week's weather"/"The models are useless"As Dr. William Connolley notes, weather and climate aren't the same thing, and predicting one isn't the same as the other. Consider (analogy: not perfect but not bad) the shore of the ocean and the level of the sea: tides can be predicted with great accuracy years in advance; waves can't be predicted any better than weather."Although affected by warming, weather is strongly influenced by ocean-atmosphere dynamics, while longer-term climate is more a function of persistent, larger-scale influences. Computer models of highly variable local weather are actually more error-prone than those of climatic trends, and near-term regional outlooks may become more challenging as the planet warms. Modern general circulation models, though, are valuable for analyzing influences from greenhouse gases to solar energy, and they produce large to medium scale results that agree well with the real world. They're continuously validated (Example), and refined with the latest data and cutting-edge physics. Yet trends have persisted, and no model can account for them without including human-generated greenhouse gases. GCM's have done a good job of projecting average temperature change, and predicting the magnitude of a short-term volcanic cooling event, the amplification of Arctic warming, an increase in heat waves, ocean warming, and the stratospheric cooling effect (#24). Still, as in any science we can't expect perfection. Detailed projection (particularly of complex regional climates) is difficult, and probability analysis is important. But models needn't be exact to give an indication of an overall trend and it's major effects. While they do contain uncertainties, recent research on the potential of feedback-related change suggests that some projections may be conservative. Those who argue against climate concerns by pointing to uncertainties in models tend to ignore the possibility that they won't turn out in our favor. More: The Physics of Climate Modeling Realclimate: Short and simple arguments for why climate can be predicted 2• "So what's a few degrees of warming?"Contrarians often take advantage of the public's weather-oriented perspective when highlighting lower-end warming projections of "only" a few degrees. The IPCC report, representing reviewed and assessed research, includes a "best estimate" range of 1.8-4.0°C (3.24-7.2°F, Δ T) by 2100, with a potential range of 1.1-6.4°C (1.98-11.52°F). This is based on several emission scenarios, with the low end assuming a world with stabilized population and a move away from fossil fuels, and the highest numbers assuming stronger feedback under a high emission scenario. Many studies point to a climate sensitivity of around 3°C (5.4°F) for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 (something that could easily occur without mitigation). Top climatologists view warming of about 2°C (3.6°F) before 2100 as a hazard point, beyond which broadly disruptive, irreparable change is likely.For local weather fluctuation, a single-digit change may not seem like much, but a long term global average temperature increase of several degrees is quite large, translating to stronger regional effects. To help put things into perspective, global mean temperature during the last glacial period was about 9°F lower than today's (and much of that seems to have occurred more slowly). Since then, things have been relatively stable, aiding the development of agrarian societies. Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert notes that "So far we haven't quite gotten to 400ppm CO2, but we'll eventually go to 700 or more without controls. We haven't even seen the full warming effects of that 400ppm yet, because it takes time for the ocean to warm up. So, the striking thing is that it has already gotten to the point that the recent warming stands out from the natural variability of the past thousand years or more, despite the fact that so far we've only experienced the barest beginnings of the warming. That's not just striking. It ought to be alarming." It has been argued that warming will be a steady, linear process, but this was based on early model experiments starting with a 1% increase in CO2 as the only forcing, and assuming a simple exponential rise into the future (while disregarding the potential of feedback loops). What's actually happened is interesting. As NASA's Gavin Schmidt notes, when Patrick Michaels (2) of the University of Virginia and the libertarian Cato Institute first made this argument in the early 1990's, "he said the linear rate of change was 0.10 deg/decade, that changed to 0.12 deg/decade a couple of years later, then 0.15 deg/decade, and now 0.18 deg/decade. If linear extrapolation is so great now, how come it underestimated the actual trend by almost a factor of 2 fifteen years ago?" Dr. Tim Flannery: "Our deep psychological resistance to thinking that "warm" might be bad allows us to be deceived about the nature of climate change. Those who have exploited this human blind spot have left many people - even the well-educated - confused. This is the result of an unhealthy, in some instances corrupt, relationship between government and industry" People often do see unusual warmth as "nice", at least until winter ends or the warmth is accompanied by drought, ecological impacts, insect invasions, severe weather, and greater fire danger, etc. 3• "But the weather is downright chilly in ________/We hit a record low!""Global warming" doesn't mean constant, uniform warming, or the end of temperate-region cold snaps. Rather, it refers to global average temperature anomaly over years and decades, an indicator of Earth's "energy budget". Despite the overall trend, natural fluctuations continue, particularly from regional oceanic & atmospheric influences (including changes in heat distribution). The climate is a fluid system, and a cool flow in one region can be more than offset by a "pooling" of heat elsewhere. Record highs will occur more frequently with global warming, but local extremes alone are not necessarily global indicators. For example, there were regional cold spells in 2005, but the land and ocean averages reflected warming for the year, continuing a multi-decadal trend. With correction for the stratospheric cooling effect, satellite readings affirm anomalous warmth.Still, perception can mislead. People don't think of globally-averaged temperatures being on the rise when they're in the middle of a winter snow storm. Many regions experience frosty spring weather, and lingering snow can give a strong impression of cold even when temperatures aren't particularly low. Under favorable conditions, though, water vapor feedback from a warming planet can actually make regional snow & ice events more intense, via the mixing of relatively warm, moist air. 4• "The instrumental temperature record is too short to suggest human influence"The determination of anomalous global change, and the expectation that it will continue and worsen under a "business as usual" emission scenario, doesn't depend solely on human temperature records. We also have borehole analysis, the physics of the greenhouse effect (infrared re-radiation), several independent proxy datasets, and other evidence for ongoing warming, in the absence of an associated natural forcing.5• "Climate change is normal/has happened throughout Earth's history..."Although there are generally-modest holocene temperature fluctuations from things like sulfates, solar cycles, and El Niño/La Niña oscillations, warming from the carbon cycle imbalance is in addition to those, and much more persistent. Significant global-scale changes in the past have generally occurred over millennia (glacial period instability and prehistoric disturbance being exceptions), allowing life to adapt or migrate. The current trend is during a long, mild interglacial that has fostered the development of Earth's present biosphere, and indications are that global average temperatures over the past million years have never been more 2° C higher than today.Human-induced climate forcing is a significant change over a short timeframe, and warming from unabated emissions will likely be much stronger than anything experienced by civilization. Several of the most serious effects will stem from it's rapidity, breadth, and persistence. Without this disruption, Earth may well have thousands of years more of mostly mild climate (see below). 6• "But most of the warming occurred before 1940"/"What about past warming, like in the 1930's/Greenland/the 'Medieval Warm Period'/the 'Mid-Holocene Warm Period'?", and "Isn't Earth recovering from the 'Little Ice Age'?"The first point is misleading, and no longer correct. NASA notes that "More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade." That warming is mostly reflective of past emissions. Despite some regionally concentrated warmth, warming in the 30's was much less significant globally than the trend in recent decades, (example: 1930's vs. the 1990's & beyond), and was likely related to oceanic heat distribution along with a period of modestly higher solar activity. Still, certain biased websites highlight reports like "the summer of 2006 was the second warmest on record - 1934 was warmer" (slightly, and regionally), implying that the overall trend is indistinct from natural variability. Many readers may fail to consider the difference between a one year regional record and longer-term global anomaly.Greenland (so-named to attract colonists, when most of it wasn't green!) hasn't always been representative of major global trends, but past change there was significantly slower (and limited in scope during the last two occurrences). Today's trend is still accelerating. Dr. Raymond Bradley of the UMASS Climate System Research Center notes that "human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past", and NASA's Evelyne Yohe notes that the Arctic warmth of the early 1930's was the result of three decades of gradual warming. Recent change has exceeded that in about a decade. The latest research indicates that the "Medieval Warm Period" (and it's "cousin", the moderate cooling labeled the "Little Ice Age") was comprised of non-synchronous regional changes mainly in the Northern hemisphere, and had relatively little impact on the global averages. They also occurred over centuries. The 2007 AR4 references proxy studies, independent from the "hockey stick" (links bar), affirming that the global magnitude of medieval warmth was weaker than that of today. Dr. Michael Mann also addresses this here (and for an example of a contrarian tactic that can make it appear otherwise, or that the current trend is part of a natural cycle, see links bar). The "mid-holocene warm period", about 6000 years ago, is a similar story, with seasonal warmth at high latitudes. It has even been suggested that the trend is part of a recovery from the "little ice age". However, not only does evidence suggest this wasn't a globally synchronous event either, but a trend can't be called a recovery if natural mechanisms can't account for it (see below). It's also important to bear in mind that past events do nothing to support the idea that the current, ongoing process is mostly natural, or a non-issue to Earth's present biology and human populations. 7• "What about claims of an impending ice age, or that we're averting one?"Robert W. Felix, a former architect, received some publicity for his book and website claiming that we're actually entering an ice age and that glaciers are growing (more below). These claims were repeated by well-known botanist David Bellamy, and posted on "skeptic" sites like Steve Milloy's "junkscience.com" (more here). These claims were traced to figures published by Fred Singer (who, like Milloy, was connected with TASSC, and also with dubious petition projects, below). Singer stated his source as " A paper published in 'Science' in 1989" (apparently nowhere to be found).It has also been suggested that humans may be averting another ice age by tipping the climate scale with CO² and methane emissions. Although we've probably already tipped that scale enough to significantly delay a Milankovitch-type ice age forcing, indications are that Earth is nowhere near due for another glacial period anyway. Still, there are those who have used the ice age aversion argument to put a positive spin on global warming. They're essentially implying that rapid warming now is fine because we'll avert the subtle multi-millennial cooling (or very rare, well-timed supervolcanic eruption) leading to the next ice age. But if we're still around in several thousand years, we can consider trying measured greenhouse gas emissions and/or other atmospheric engineering, to avoid glaciation. Something to consider is that humans are in a period of development that may eventually make us less vulnerable to disasters. It's in our interest to value and prolong the time we have. On a related issue, there's a common myth that climatologists predicted an imminent ice age in the 1970's, despite the infancy of the science & technology, and acknowledged uncertainty on the future trajectory of climate forcings. While there was some speculation (along with caveats) and overzealous coverage by certain media outlets, there's a bit more to the story than today's naysayers admit. 8• "Natural processes will fix the imbalance"This is essentially true, but it leaves out two important factors: The timescales involved and the damage done in the meantime. Once the source diminishes, an imbalance tends to self-correct, but not necessarily in a quick and convenient manner. During the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum, carbon accumulation occurred over 10,000 years, and recovery took about 100,000. At this point, things are a bit different, but not in a way that allows us to continue as usual. In fact, evidence suggests humans are releasing carbon at a much higher rate than during the initial stages of the PETM. If this were allowed to compromise Earth's carbon sinks, a millennial recovery period wouldn't be out of the question.9• "Won't life on Earth just adapt?"Rapid warming is a multi-faceted problem, with ecosystem impacts being one result. Some organisms may readily adapt (many of them at the expense of their populations), but others can't simply adjust in a matter of decades or centuries. Thousands of species, including some that play vital roles in complex ecosystems, are at risk (see link section).10• "What about religious views of global warming?"For those with a Bible-based perspective on the issue, the question becomes whether there's direct divine control over Earth's life-supporting systems (thus we can freely trash them), or whether a sustained quasi-equilibrium has been set up that allows our actions (born out of free will) to demonstrate either stewardship or disregard. And which seems more responsible: To assume the former because it's easy and convenient, or the latter because it's not worth gambling with the future (a future that could be millennia, despite ever-present predictions of apocalypse)? Several religious groups have decided it's better to err on the side of caution and accept some responsibility for the environment that sustains us. Others selectively interpret the Bible as supporting environmental carelessness, while disregarding passages that could be interpreted as suggesting such things as responsibility, humanity's self-determination, or even (at the extreme) the death penalty for adµlterers ("Leviticus" 20:10, "Deuteronomy" 22:22).11• "More solar activity is responsible, and warming on Mars/Pluto proves it."Scafetta & West suggested that an increase in total solar irradiance may have contributed 10-30% of the warming from 1980-2002 (Urs Neu comments on this particular study here), later revised to 25-35% from 1980-2000. Dr. Rasmus Benestad notes that they "used some crude estimates of 'climate sensitivity' and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies)", and that "From 1980 and afterwards, they see a warming associated with solar forcing, even when basing their calculations on the FL98 data. The fact that the FL98 data doesn't contain any trend makes this finding seem a bit odd...". Benestad has also pointed out that if newer, updated TSI data are used, "the trends they calculate vanish". S&W use the delay of thermal inertia to explain their solar attribution after 1980 in the absence of a solar trend. Thermal inertia, though, would've produced a tapered response, yet the warming trend has strengthened. Benestad continues that "the big problem is to explain a lag of more than 30 years when direct measurements of quantities (galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm solar radio, magnetic index, level of sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths) do not indicate any trend in the solar activity since the 1950s..." Update: S&W try again, with a "cavalier stitching of data series", "some suspicious results", and "sloppy" analysis... In any case, elevated levels of greenhouse gas trap additional solar energy whatever it's intensity. The fact that the greenhouse effect strongly influences Earth's climate makes it an important part of the equation - one that we're clearly tinkering with. If it were allowed to snowball, and a period of high solar activity were to occur in the future, one has to wonder about the results. There has also been some speculation that ultraviolet light or the reduction of cosmic ray intensity by the "solar wind", or in Earth's magnetic field (which would actually have a cooling effect) could be significant factors in global warming, but this is unsupported by evidence. UV, like total solar irradiance, hasn't fluctuated much (if it had it should also show in stratospheric temperature trends), and as previously noted, there has been no trend of decreasing cosmic ray influx (consistent with other solar-related indicators). Re: Mars and other planets - Even if there were a global warming trend on Mars, there are no oceans and the atmosphere is much thinner there, so temperatures are more responsive to even small changes. But as noted by astrophysicist Steinn Sigurdsson, there are other factors at work on Mars unrelated to the sun's output (which, overall, has "been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum"). Different orbital parameters/strong seasonal variation, rapid changes in polar ice due to climatic instability, and the strength & duration of hemispheric dust storms are also involved. "Thus, inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted", says Sigurdsson. For Pluto, warming has been inferred from a change in atmospheric thickness over less than one Plutonian season, following a close approach to the sun. We can't assume any long-term change. Other bodies in the solar system also have very long seasons (some hundreds of years), or are strongly affected by internal heating, so they can't be used as solar indicators either. 12• "The CO2 increase is natural"/Ocean warming is responsible for the rise in CO2, rather than vise-versa."The question is, what's causing that warming if solar activity can't account for most of it? A few "skeptics" have suggested undersea volcanoes, but a major increase in activity (for which there's no evidence) would be required to globally warm the oceans a fraction of a degree, and they're also warming from the surface down. Earth's average geothermal heat flow is negligible compared to the energy received from the sun or retained by the greenhouse effect. A recent Scripps study (see sidebar) affirms that oceanic warming is mostly from human activity. And in terms of CO2 exchange, the oceans still represent a net absorption of about 2 GtC (this may drop as temperatures rise and ocean chemistry changes). Scientists can also measure how much atmospheric CO² is from fossil fuel combustion:How do we know that recent CO² increases are due to human activities? Since CO² can act as a forcing and a feedback, higher levels can be both a cause of warming and an effect. But significant fluctuations in the past are associated with prehistoric geologic activity and glacial-interglacial transitions (see below). 13• "What about methane, and it's release from the oceans?"Although much less abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, and has the potential to play a significant role in future warming. There have been accumulative natural releases of methane in the past (such as in prehistory and near the end of the last glacial period), but otherwise they've been modest. Methane concentration actually leveled off in recent years as human-induced emission from old natural gas facilities declined. Feedback effects, however, are likely to release more methane to the atmosphere as warming progresses. One scenario, modeled by an NCAR supercomputer, involves warmer water releasing methane currently locked under the sea floor (see sidebar). Thawing permafrost, though, may have more feedback potential over the next several decades.14• "Aren't the oceans actually cooling?"A study by Lyman et al showed a decrease in oceanic heat content from 2003-2005. Part of this could be related to improved sampling (although the rapidly changing Arctic is under-represented), but such interannual variability wouldn't indicate a new trend, or that models evaluated with ocean temperature changes are invalid. Gavin Schmidt reminds us at Realclimate that short-term fluctuations are mostly a function of weather, and shouldn't be expected to be captured by climate models. He also notes a possible inconsistency in this particular study: Sea level should have dropped along with temperature, unless there has been a sharp increase in compensating ice melt (which might account for some oceanic heat loss). Ocean circulation changes may also play a role. While the study is still under review, short-term inconsistency in warming, perhaps including a contribution from "mixing", wouldn't be very surprising.Update: Peer review at work. Lyman study seems to have data problem, cooling has disappeared in latest analysis. 15• "Ice core data shows that warming causes rising CO2, not vice versa."This claim not only ignores the traceable origins of the current accumulation (#12 above), but it leaves out some important details. During glacial transitions, recovery of atmospheric CO2 acted as a feedback to amplify warming triggered by Milankovitch orbital forcing. This doesn't mean CO2 can't itself be a significant climate forcing (a cause of change rather than just a response). It just never has (until now) over the entire 800,000 year ice core record. More from Realclimate.Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps notes: "All that the lag shows is that CO² did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO², as far as we can tell from this ice core data". According to Caillon et al, 2003 (icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf), "the CO² increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation"... And referring again to our 650 kiloyear CO2 chart:  16• "Volcanic/other natural emissions far exceed those of humans." Outgassing
from volcanism may have been a significant climatic influence in
prehistory, but more "recently" in geologic time, it has been dwarfed
by human output. Gavin Schmidt notes that current volcanic emissions
(in Gt of carbon equivalent) are about 0.15 gigatons a year, and that
"There are both direct measurements of volcanic outgassing (from which
I got the 0.15 Gt/year integrated number) and also isotopic and mass
balance arguments that absolutely, 100%, no question about it, mean
that the current rise in CO2 is anthropogenic". Another volcanic gas, sulfur dioxide (SO²), can have a temporary cooling effect.But the real issue is a significant change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Emissions from fossil fuel combustion were about 7.5 gigatons (carbon equivalent) annually as of 2004, and Earth's carbon sinks currently absorb almost half of this. Overall, natural CO² emissions have been balanced by absorption. A simplified example: The trees that burn in a forest fire contain carbon that was previously removed from the atmosphere. As the forest regenerates, CO² is absorbed. With continued warming, though, wildfires may become more frequent and severe, further disrupting the carbon cycle. Update: Rise in wildfires linked to climate change. 17• "CO2 trend data from Mauna Loa is biased by the volcano"Carbon dioxide readings are taken upwind from volcanic vents, outgassing activity is monitored, and any short-term change of more than 1 ppm is flagged, but even if the Mauna Loa figures were tainted, the volcano wouldn't explain a long-term upward trend. There are also multiple isolated recording stations around the world, including in Antarctica.18• "Is deforestation affecting climate?"While fossil fuel combustion is the primary factor in global warming, deforestation results in the release of about 1.6 gigatons of carbon annually. The impact is highest in the tropics, since those forests (which tend to be ecologically sensitive) are often burned for pasture land, and changes are often permanent or very long-term. Forest loss can reduce the land-based carbon sink, and re-forestation can help offset carbon cycle impacts, but net absorption rates are influenced by multiple factors, including forest type and regional climate.19• "Extra CO2 will be beneficial/Enhanced plant growth will correct the imbalance."It has been thought that higher CO² levels will enhance plant growth and benefit agriculture, especially in the near-term, but there's more to the story. Growing conditions are likely to change (insect populations, water availability, extreme weather events...), and a comprehensive Stanford University study found that elevated CO² only stimulated growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were at normal levels. It was also suggested that excess soil carbon or initially accelerated growth may limit the availability of nutrients. Some "weedy" plants may benefit disproportionately from extra CO2, but regardless of present-day geographic limitations they would need to more than triple the terrestrial carbon sink to counter most of our current emissions. For more detail on other considerations in agriculture, see the consequences page.Regarding the theory that enhanced plant growth (if it were to pan out overall, under real-world conditions) could bring CO² levels closer to equilibrium: Any enhancement of a carbon sink helps, but the accumulation already in progress is exceeding sequestration by plants, and oceanic dissolution. 20• "Do plants/trees/phytoplankton cause global warming?"A recent study (still under review) indicated that plants naturally release methane, and possibly act as a modest feedback. This led some media outlets like National Geographic online (which later corrected it's story) to jump to the conclusion that plants, and thus reforestation, cause global warming. It may make a good hot-button news item, but it's a misinterpretation. The study doesn't suggest that plants have somehow become a new forcing factor, inducing a rise in methane. Rather, it addresses estimation of methane output from natural sources (not an exact science), and suggests the figures need to be adjusted to reflect live plants as a source (but of course they're also a CO2 sink). These emissions have always been part of the natural greenhouse effect, but global warming is from an amplification of that effect by an increase in GHG levels, particularly CO2. The authors released a clarification of their study, with discussion of minor reforestation implications.One can also see articles that imply phytoplankton and other plants are linked to global warming via solar energy absorption. Since this too has been happening long before the sharp post-industrial warming trend, it's more accurate to say plants play a role in regulating temperature via their interaction with solar energy and their capture of carbon. Human planting activities, depending on climate zone, may have some net effect, but greenhouse gas levels are the part of the climate equation that has changed dramatically, and continues to do so. 21• "What about the role of clouds and precipitation?"Some contrarians have highlighted the suggestion that extra cloud cover might offset warming. John Christy of UAH recently speculated on this, and also stated (to digress for a moment) that "Whatever happens, we'll adapt". The question, is how many of Earth's billions of people (ecology aside) might adapt, at what cost, and with what quality of life? Regarding clouds: Although storms (fostered by lift or lateral temperature differential) may increase in density, rising temperatures mean more water can also remain uncondensed in the troposphere. The likelihood of significant cooling from thick, low-level cloud cover appears questionable.Depending on their type, clouds can reflect more energy than they trap in the atmosphere or vice-versa. They can reduce daytime warmth, but also keep overnight temperatures higher and provide a headstart for daytime heating. An overall increase in winter lower-level cloud cover and a reduction in the summer averages would have a warming influence. The net effect from climate change is an area of intensive study. All climate models project significant warming, but cloud behavior may help determine whether it will be closer to the high end or the low end of the range. Although improvements in measurement are needed, two independent datasets (including NASA's ISCCP) indicate no clear trend in Earth's average albedo. Additionally, proponents of the cloud-cooling theory don't seem to indicate why negative feedback had trouble keeping up with the last carbon accumulation event in prehistory. Betting on altered cloud cover is probably unwise. Update: Spencer & Christy, previously known for promoting a flawed satellite temperature record, have released a paper suggesting that an intraseasonal cooling effect in the tropics may have significant implications for the projection of global warming. See How to cook a graph in three easy lessons. Spencer also appears to imply that precipitation systems control global water vapor levels and temperature, while the human influence on the greenhouse effect is a "small" 1% (a highly dubious figure). As discussed earlier, the prevailing view is that it's ultimately temperature that determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere at any given moment, and the science overwhelmingly points to long-term CO2 accumulation as the primary forcing. Speculation aside, Spencer doesn't seem to offer a viable alternative explanation for global changes in temperature and water vapor. 22• "What about 'aerosols', contrails, and 'global dimming'?"Global dimming refers to a reduction of solar energy at Earth's surface caused by particulate/"aerosol" pollution and it's interaction with clouds. Aircraft contrails also have a small (on average) effect, but this ends up as a slight warming due to infrared re-radiation. The cooling effect of aerosols has partially masked global warming and presents what seems like a pollution control conundrum. Since the 1990's, though, this effect showed signs of declining, meaning additional energy for the human-amplified greenhouse effect to trap. This would make CO2 emission reduction that much more important. Currently, particulates and sulfur dioxide (a source of sulfate aerosol) are reduced for the sake of cleaner air, while CO2 output usually goes unaddressed.Another effect of these pollutants seems to be the intensification of winter storms in the northern Pacific (and disruption of vital Asian monsoons), and their circulation of warmer air to the Arctic (Zhang et al, 2007). In other words, such pollution may worsen warming-induced changes in some regions. 23• "Don't El Niño and La niña influence climate?"These are an oscillation related to the circulation of tropical Pacific heat. Although a significant natural influence on weather patterns, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, and aren't linked to the overall warming trend. However, the interannual effects of El Niño and La Niña may be enhanced by global warming and extra moisture availability. There are also indications that the magnitude and persistence of El Niño may be affected (more here and here).24• "What about ozone depletion, stratospheric cooling, and CO2 band saturation?"Although sometimes confused in the media, stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming are largely separate concerns. The main problem with ozone depletion is higher levels of damaging ultraviolet radiation. This is already being successfully tackled (see here for more, including footnotes) with an international phase-out of CFCs (ChloroFluoroCarbons), while global warming needs to be addressed via reduced emission of greenhouse gases ("GHGs") like carbon dioxide. The two issues, though, are somewhat interconnected.CFCs (and some of their substitutes) and tropospheric ozone are also greenhouse gases (relatively minor ones compared to CO2). And, as counterintuitive as it may seem, the amplified greenhouse effect causes stratospheric cooling (simplifying, more GHG in the troposphere reduces infrared re-radiation to the stratosphere). Ozone depletion itself contributes modestly to such cooling. The claim that band saturation severely limits CO2 as a climate forcing is a myth (more here), derived from a concept widely considered flawed since the 1950's. The upper atmosphere and the "wings" of the CO2 absorption band are rather important, and the forcing of CO2 used in models is still the natural log of it's change in concentration (leaving plenty of capacity to induce significant change). 25• "Aren't glaciers growing?/Isn't Antarctica cooling"These are popular half-truths, meant to mislead. Partly due to heat uptake by the southern ocean and lower surface melt, ice sheets in Antarctica have remained relatively stable, while research indicated an increase in snowfall over parts of the continent. Some snowpack thickening has also been observed in Greenland, particularly at high elevations. This is related to the regional precipitation of extra water vapor, and is not inconsistent with a warming world. Despite this, and a slight cooling in parts of Antarctica (predicted by models), most of the world's glaciers have been receding as part of an inter-decadal trend, ice loss has accelerated in Greenland (resulting in a large net mass reduction), and new research shows that Antarctica is currently undergoing a significant net loss of ice mass. Update: Antarctic Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland One example of feedback: A moulin (vertical shaft) carries meltwater to the ice sheet base, where it can (depending on sub-glacial characteristics) act as a movement-accelerating lubricant. 26• "Is there a link between warming and hurricanes?"There's no way to conclusively prove or disprove a link between global warming and a particular storm, and the connection between recent hurricane strength and early-stage global warming has been an area of some debate. However, research (such as Emanuel, Knutson, Webster, Holland et al.) indicates an overall trend influenced by warming. Webster noted that "What we found was rather astonishing. In the 1970's, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year globally. Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally".Multiple factors affect hurricanes, but even a seemingly small rise in sea surface temperature means extra water vapor and energy for a storm to pick up (while el niño conditions in the Pacific can temporarily disrupt hurricane formation in the Atlantic). Still, certain meteorologists and media outlets have quickly dismissed any connection, ignoring the ongoing scientific inquiry, often focusing on frequency rather than intensity, and chalking everything up to a natural Atlantic cycle (controversy followed). The research, though, found an intensity trend in Pacific and Indian ocean storms as well. This article addresses the issue further. Updates: Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming A look at William Gray's contrarian arguments GW link avoidance continued NOAA's Chris Landsea challenges reliability of past intensity data, researcher responds Clarity Emerging on Hurricanes? 27• "Is there much disagreement among climatologists, or some level of consensus?"Although consensus isn't required by science, and contrarians might mock it, there have been relatively few cases of well-established scientific tenets being fundamentally overturned, particularly in modern Earth science. For every Galileo-type challenge that succeeds in establishing a truly alternative theory, there are many others that fail. In climatology, the peer-reviewed literature, the IPCC summary, and major scientific organizations indicate wide agreement on several main points, including that there's a significant human influence on climate:Logical Science on consensus Addressing the claim that it's non-existent The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus Inhofe: Misrepresented "study" erodes consensus? 28• "Climatologists exaggerate/perpetuate the concept of human influence for the sake of funding."As Ray Pierrehumbert put it: "Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." And "...scientists are probing theories and conceptions all the time, trying to break them. The best way to become famous is to overturn established wisdom, so scientists look hard all the time for opportunities to do this."David C adds in a RealClimate comment: "This is the same argument I have heard regarding medical research ("If somebody cured cancer, all the funding for cancer researchers would dry up."). The science is driven by the data, which are available for anyone to examine. There have been many opportunities for researchers to challenge that consensus of the climatology community, but the case supporting anthropogenic climate change has only become stronger". Funding for high-tech Earth science research at NASA was actually cut for 2006 and 2007, and observation programs are in peril as satellites age and aren't replaced. In 2006, a completed $100 million climate satellite was even left in storage, with the NASA brass doing nothing and saying little despite being offered a free launch by two foreign governments. Further, much climate science funding is applied to areas of uncertainty - something climatologists concerned mainly about money would over-emphasize, rather than repeatedly affirming the primary role of human activity. We also have the reality that many climate researchers are tenured, and conduct research as they see fit. Most funding goes into cutting edge research and equipment. Can the same be said of funds disbursed to contrarians by the fossil fuel industry? 29• "Doesn't Oregon climatologist George Taylor think anthropogenic warming isn't happening/the Arctic is cooling?"Taylor's meteorology may be as reliable as can be, but is his climatology? To quote an article by Paul Koberstein (Willamette Week) regarding Oregon's rogue weather man:Taylor's position as the leading climate expert in Oregon, a state with a national environmental reputation, has given ammo to those who are hostile to the idea that the earth is warming up. On Jan. 4 of this year, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Senate floor speech, "As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative." Inhofe was wrong on two counts. First, Taylor is not a doctor; he has no Ph.D. (he received his master's in meteorology at the University of Utah in 1975). And second, Taylor is flat-out mistaken. Temperatures in the Arctic have, in fact, reached unprecedented levels, according to an exhaustive study by two international Arctic science organizations published last November that confirmed previous, similar results... And: Taylor's colleagues at Oregon State's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences have grown frustrated over the years with what they consider his misunderstanding of climate-change facts. On multiple occasions, faculty members found it necessary to correct statements in Taylor's regular "Weather Matters" column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times. In 2004, a letter to the editor of the Gazette-Times signed by Prof. James Coakley "and all professors of the College of Atmospheric Sciences" said Taylor's statements in the newspaper "misrepresent the widely accepted scientific knowledge concerning the Earth's climate and global warming." 30• "How soon will major change be unavoidable/Is it too late to act?"Although reasonable estimates of climate sensitivity have been made, there's still some uncertainty about exactly how rapid warming will become over the next several decades, and how soon "tipping points" might be reached. This depends not only on the interaction of feedbacks, but also on how humans react. The latest research indicates a high risk of disruption if significant emission reduction efforts are not implemented over the next decade, with the goal of at least a 60% cut. Currently emissions are still rising about 2% a year.31• "Shouldn't we focus on adaptation/Isn't Kyoto ineffective?"It has been suggested that more attention be paid to adapting to climate change than to addressing the roots of the problem. Adaptation must be part of the effort, since we're already committed to additional warming. But this doesn't mean we should allow stronger and more protracted changes that make future adaptation (or risky attempts at geoengineering) more costly and less effective. The Kyoto protocol, an international attempt at cutting emissions, is a phased work in progress, and writing it off as a hopeless failure is premature.32• "So what can be done?"Climate change and our energy situation are big problems that require the implementation of several solutions, and the participation of energy consumers. We need to start now rather than simply betting on technologies that may not be viable in time to avoid locking in dangerous effects. Alternative energy sources that result in little or no net CO2 emission (from production or consumption) will play a role, but there must be a focus on reducing waste/improving fuel efficiency, and developing economical ways of processing CO2 from power plants.For some basic things we can do now to address the issue of global climate change, see sidebar. 33• "Is 'clean coal' an option?"Certain newer coal technologies have the potential to reduce CO2 emission, but the significant cuts will be made by gasification plants that implement CO2 pollution control. IGCC plants make separation economical, but the CO2 must then be compressed and sequestered. Except where it can be sold for deep-Earth oil extraction, this represents an expense unlikely to be widely accepted without incentives and/or CO2 regulation. So far, proposals for new coal gasification plants in Ohio and West Virginia don't call for carbon dioxide controls. In addition, "coal to liquid" fuels represent a double CO2 pollution load unless CO2 from production is captured. Even then, there is no difference between the global climate impact of coal fuels and petroleum fuels.34• "Won't hydrogen solve all our problems?"There has been a lot of hype regarding hydrogen as a fuel, as well as hydrogen compound gases that are largely of dubious value. Although it has future potential as the energy situation improves, widespread use is decades away. The key issues are infrastructure, the low energy density of hydrogen compared with hydrocarbon fuels, and the fact that hydrogen isn't an energy source. It must be generated from water or fossil fuels, and takes more energy to produce, store, and distribute than it yields in combustion, unlike alternatives like biodiesel. Fuel cells may eventually offer enough output and overall efficiency at reasonable cost, but probably not anytime soon. If or when that occurs, they may be better used with hydrocarbon fuels rather than pure hydrogen.Hydrogen hype may be beneficial to oil companies likely to be involved in building infrastructure, providing potential fossil feedstocks for hydrogen production and delivering fuel, and it may leave the impression that they're making an effort to ease our petro-addiction. In reality, focusing mostly on hydrogen will delay the transition from fossil fuels, and will require additional energy supply and higher efficiency to satisfy a significant percentage of demand. 35• "Improving efficiency and cutting emissions will ruin our economy."Fossil-funded political organizations have released reports on the costs of acting that provide little detail and ignore or underestimate the benefits. Further delay is more likely to ruin our economy, both in terms of the lasting effects of climate change, and rising oil prices as demand outpaces cheap extraction. Higher prices may be good for oil companies with the most robust reserves, but they will impact everything produced and/or transported with oil, including plastics, building materials, and even food (think agricultural chemicals and diesel). The economic costs of climate change alone are likely to be very steep compared to the costs of acting to limit global warming.The essential solutions to this problem are higher efficiency and alternative fuels - not necessarily economy killers. The transition may result in change that's negative to some (at least initially) but positive to most. There are even existing technologies, including improved hybrid drives (and "displacement on demand" for those needing more power) that cost extra, but with re-tooling and increased production, costs will drop, and fuel savings can exceed the extra expense. In several states, hybrid cars are offered with 8-10 year warranties, reducing total cost of ownership. Making additional technology improvements is largely a matter of investment. Claims of economic ruin are further discussed here. 36• "Do cars and SUV's really have much impact?"While there's more than one source of greenhouse gas accumulation, vehicle CO2 output had reached over 530 megatons GtC (almost 2 gigatons total weight) annually in the U.S. alone in 2005. As the market share of heavy SUV's almost doubled over the last two decades, average fuel economy dropped and became largely stagnant. A Chevron ICIS report noted in 2000 that "With the proliferation of larger vehicles, particularly Sport/Utility Vehicles (SUVs), fleet average fuel economy has actually declined in recent years, such that it is now very difficult for some manufacturers to meet CAFE standards."37• "But don't 'cow emissions' have more impact than fossil fuels?"This might seem like an odd one, but a 2006 UN report suggested that livestock production results in more greenhouse gas emission, in CO2 equivalent, than the transportation sector (although they don't seem to say how much more). The 18% figure includes methane (6%) and nitrous oxide (3%) output, and also CO2 from production (forest burning & fossil fuel inputs - 9%). Nitrous oxide forcing has been growing moderately (currently 0.16 W/m2 vs. 1.66 for CO2) and methane is so far lingering around 0.5 W/m2. Meanwhile CO2 emission from transit and power generation continues to grow rapidly, and may take more time to mitigate. Therefore, it's important to get serious about all significant sources, agricultural and otherwise.38• "Aren't automakers improving efficiency/developing alternative fuel cars?"Most manufacturers have resisted applying efficiency technologies in any significant way. Recently, more automakers have released limited lines of enhanced vehicles, and then developed advertising campaigns to appeal to concerns about fuel prices (concerns heightened by heavier, inefficient personal vehicles). Several of these ads celebrate very modest fuel economy improvements (vs. about two decades ago), and even hybrids that make relatively little difference in efficiency. The 2008 Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura, for example, have a mere 2 MPG edge over their conventional counterparts and significantly lag behind competing hybrid cars (ratings). Meanwhile, average fuel economy in America is still among the lowest in the world. Recent legislation will help in time, but also contains a loophole (see sidebar). See "Taking Action" below for some of the better fuel economy ratings.Vehicles that burn ethanol have also been touted, but fuels containing a significant percentage of ethanol aren't yet widely available, and without further efficiency improvements (in both production and combustion) the net benefit may be quite limited compared to biodiesel. But as production methods advance and agricultural wastes are effectively utilized, ethanol could be a valuable fuel, since the plants used to produce it are part of the present-day carbon cycle (they absorb atmospheric CO2 in order to produce the carbohydrates the fuel is derived from). The transportation fuels with the most promise for having a small carbon footprint (cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol, and algal biodiesel) are not yet commercially viable, and at present consumption levels they may have a hard time gaining a foothold. This makes conservation more important than ever. 39• "What about China?"It's a common argument, often used to deflect responsibility, that China is passing the U.S. in CO2 emission, but isn't required to improve under Kyoto (therefore, the U.S. shouldn't bother). First, China does participate to some degree in the early phase of Kyoto, but as a developing nation it isn't expected to return to it's 1990 emission levels. Second, America has been emitting large amounts of CO2 longer, and it's still easily number one in per-capita emission. There are over a billion people in China, yet their total output is nearly the same as ours. Some argue that efficiency (at least industrial efficiency) is higher in the U.S./CO2 emission is lower per unit of GDP. This depends on whether differences in purchasing power are considered, but the U.S. has also shifted a portion of it's manufacturing overseas. As a result, we're indirectly responsible for part of China's carbon footprint. Most countries can do better, but the U.S. is in a particularly strong position to do so, and foster technologies that can spread to developing nations.40• "Didn't warming already stop?"This is an oldie that began with people like Pat Michaels (#2 above) and Geologist & prolific contrarian Bob Carter (here, here, and here). In reality, the strongest el niño of the century helped make 1998 an exceptionally warm year (according to the CRU dataset, which excludes the rapidly warming Arctic). So choosing it as a base year for a comparison is a classic cherry pick. Even with later years (particularly those affected by la niña) being a bit cooler than 1998, they were still anomalous, and 11 of the warmest on record occurred in the last 13 years (CRU).Re: Denier petition #1: OISM/Oregon Petition, and here (Update: Another sad attempt from OISM). Re: Petition 2: Leipzig Declaration, and here. Re: Petition 3: Heidelberg Appeal "...the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming...", but like the OISM petition it was apparently still a suitable vehicle for Singer and Seitz. We would be fools to risk so much to avoid a transition that may initially be a challenge, but also offers a myriad of environmental, economic, and national security benefits. - Andy Newburg ===== 1. Adaptation responds to current losses. 2. Mitigation responds to future losses. 3. Adaptation plus future costs is more expensive than mitigation. 4. Adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity. - J. Willard Rabett |
 News, More Information, and Making a Difference
Greenhouse gas (tropospheric ozone) destruction & "climate" models
Human activity-and very little else-is warming the world's oceans (Complete Scripps report here) Study invokes "More PR related confusion" Macro-regional cool spell from La Niña likely to last through spring (Some interpret this weather event as a trend reversal) How Do We Really Know?... A brief look at the case for human influence 2007 tied with 1998 as 2nd warmest year NASA: Warmth "noteworthy" during cool phase of ENSO, and at solar minimum (more regarding surface datasets below) National Post and IBD: Misrepresenting scientist's views on solar activity and potential cooling? Sun showing signs of recovery from it's decadal minimum Causes of rapid Arctic warming More media misinterpretation: Contribution of heat transport presumed to be all natural (More discussion) Inhofe & Morano at it again 400 "prominent scientists" dispute global warming? (RC comment here) Energy bill passes A step forward, along with a flex fuel loophole and a denial of states' right to do better Gee-Whiz Geoengineering Direct tinkering with climate: Questions and caveats Journalists misinterpret UK decision on "Inconvenient Truth" Judge also made some errors in assessment Low Climate Sensitivity? and more solar shenanigans Global Warming Totally Disproven, Again! Small error in one U.S. surface dataset means scientific fraud/no global warming? AAAS President Urges Action on Climate Change/Energy National Science Academies Do the Same Southern ocean carbon sink weakened Research indicates early human impact on CO2 absorption Western countries outsource emissions to China Total emissions rise from carbon-intensive manufacturing Supreme Court Rebukes Bush Admin on CO2 emissions EPA's authority affirmed Curve Manipulation How to make the trend look normal IPCC 4th assessment mis-represented Contrarians claim it cuts two key estimates Related: Did the IPCC underestimate sea level rise? Peer Review: A Necessary but Not Sufficient Condition Weeding out bad science G.W. Swindle ? Scientists feel swindled by TV documentary Record Temperature Anomaly for 2005 (this is with solar activity "declining slightly" and no El Niño influence on the global average) Supercomputer displays future warming, consequences of methane feedback Coal-burning utility fights the science Patrick Michaels receives $100,000 Global Temperature Highest in Millennia CEO of Royal Dutch Shell calls for action, regulation Exxon to Lift Output by 25 Percent by 2010 A "dazzling debunking of climate change science" Actually, another lesson in contrarian disinformation Antarctic's ice 'melting faster' Greenland Glaciers 'Moving Faster' Worst weather-related economic losses in history spur discussion of the future Doonesbury: Science & Controversy Study: Warming Could Doom Million Species by 2050 Ocean acidification: "The Other Problem..." Corals, CO2-absorbing phytoplankton affected Climate Research Distorted and Suppressed Resource Wars? British Defense Secretary sees rising conflict from warming and resource competition Inhofe & Dr. Michael Crichton (that's M.D.): Together at Last! Sci-Fi author testifies on climate change Atmospheric Layers & the Satellite Record Discrepancy in the temperature record explained Study: Climate Warming to Shrink Key Water Supplies Biologically-rich coral reefs at risk Global Warming "Skeptic" Bingo! Global Warming 101 The controversial "hockey stick" temperature graph: Broken? and ... Vindication: "New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise” Taking Action Steps we can take now to reduce our impact, encourage action, and save money on energy:
1. When possible, use alternative transportation, such as walking, bicycling, or mass transit. When driving, try to combine tasks into one trip and carry passengers. Choose your most fuel efficient vehicle for solo and long road trips. 2. When purchasing your next vehicle, choose a relatively efficient model, perhaps a hybrid or one that can run on alternative fuels like biodiesel. If you can afford it, buy a vehicle with better fuel economy. The sooner efficient vehicles gain market share, the faster we'll see a transition on our roadways. Even some "cleaner diesel" non-hybrids (such as the Volkswagen Golf TDI, Jetta TDI, and the Mercedes-Benz E-Class) are a better option than a standard gasoline engine. Although current diesels are in some ways a lesson in tradeoffs, higher efficiency and biodiesel compatibility can make them worthwhile, and improved models will arrive after 2007. Considering a heavy SUV or truck as a primary mode of personal transit? Ask yourself if it's really worth the disproportionate impact these vehicles have, including on future generations. Even with hybrid technology, excess weight and surplus power are killers of fuel economy. Cutting CO² pollution is largely a matter of reducing fuel usage and using renewable fuels that result in little net CO² accumulation, something typically excluded from low emission claims. 3. Lowering your electricity usage can help reduce carbon emissions, since over half of the power generated in the U.S. is from fossil fuels. Some easy ways to trim fuel & electricity usage 4. Reduce your consumption of meats, particularly mass-produced ones like beef. Many people eat far more protein than they need from animal products, and with that consumption comes higher rates of health trouble disease too. 5. Buy local (or at least national) as much as possible, particularly for food and heavy merchandise. This reduces the freight transit portion of your carbon footprint. 6. The three R's (reduce, reuse, recycle) help conserve resources and energy. Example: Except in voltage-sensitive applications or emergency equipment, use rechargeable batteries. Also, avoid replacing items that can be repaired or restored (unless they waste energy). 7. Contact your senators, representatives, and your governor, and let them know you're concerned about America's energy future and global climate change. Urge them to work for reasonable efficiency standards (also vital for economic reasons). Also, show your concern via StopGlobalWarming.org, and Help educate 8. Regardless of your political persuasions, or your impression of Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth" is a compelling presentation of the basics, and a portion of gross ticket sales go to The Alliance for Climate Protection. Preview: The original presentation the film is based on (broadband connection required/233.8 MB). Not as vivid as the film, though. Share the Truth provides free tickets & DVD's Make a request, or donate. 9. See something misleading in the media? Say something. Thousands, if not millions, of people can be exposed to misinformation via television, radio, and newspapers. Insisting on greater accuracy could help keep reporters on their toes. 10. Investors: Increase your holdings in responsible companies that focus on efficiency technologies and environmentally conscious resource management. 11. With the help of nitrogen and minerals, plants use carbon dioxide and water to produce carbohydrates. So planting trees with a moderate growth rate and decent life expectancy can help store excess carbon (the net amount varies by species and situation). But there are a few caveats: Outside of the tropics this may have limited offset potential, and new plantings (particularly evergreens) that absorb more sunlight than their surrounding environment can actually make a net contribution to warming over time. In some regions, particularly those with high precipitation, replacing native grasslands with trees may result in soil carbon release, countering any positive effect. For those doing mass plantings, using trees that have some lumber value would prevent carbon stored in the wood from being returned to the atmosphere after decades of growth. Deriving fuels from sustainable wood can also help by displacing fuels that are a net source of carbon. Native forests that are allowed to complete their natural cycles are important, but so are plantations that are carefully managed and harvested. 12. Reduce paper mail received. Consider switching to online/electronic statements if your financial institution offers them. Sometimes they're available for years past, and they're usually as legal for tax purposes etc. as a mailed copy (this may vary at a state or local level: Check with authorities). This step not only saves the resources and energy used in paper production and delivery, but you have less clutter to store. Got an extra few bucks? Help this site move to a better, higher bandwidth server. |