"Knowing is half the battle". GI Joe was right 20 years ago when I sat watching the show every afternoon after school. And believe it or not, the Joes are right today.
I'm a big fan of the website Skeptical Science, which is a great reference for those who want to learn more about climate change. The site has now released The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. Highly recommend reading. Duke and the rest of the Joes would be proud.
Showing posts with label SkepticalScience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SkepticalScience. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
NAS & EPA - What More Do You Need?
Since the grand creation of GreenMachine2050, one of my main objectives has been to lay the foundation for the need to take action on climate change - because the science is clear and the potential catastrophic impacts require it. Don't forget to check out the all important disclaimer.
The one avid reader out there other than myself will be familiar with my Fact or Fiction pieces that I usually try to do on Fridays. These posts have been sporadic unfortunately and I think I'm going to move more towards addressing the problem and away from identifying the problem. The evidence is overwhelming and there are a number of dedicated sites that focus solely on the science such as RealClimate and Skeptical Science.
But before I do that, I want to draw your attention to recent reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The reports reinforce the scientific evidence that global warming is happening and is likely due to human activity and the increased production of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).
The NAS reports, covering the science, mitigation, and adaptation, are the most recent US studies which make the case for urgent action. The report on science concludes that a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. In its report on mitigation, NAS concludes that meeting internationally discussed targets for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and associated increases in global average temperatures will require a major departure from business as usual in how the world uses and produces energy, and calls for some type of price on carbon. And finally, in its report on adaptation, NAS concludes that adaptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm - one that considers a range of possible future climate conditions and associated impacts, some well outside the realm of past experience.
The EPA, in its report entitled Climate Change Indicators in the United States, outlines recent climate impacts occurring in real time. Some of the key findings include:
- Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are increasing. Between 1990 and 2008, there has been about a 14 percent increase in emissions in the United States.
- Average temperatures are rising. Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the continental United States have occurred since 1990.
- Tropical cyclone intensity has increased in recent decades. Six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s.
- Sea levels are rising. From 1993 to 2008, sea level rose twice as fast as the long-term trend.
- Glaciers are melting. Loss of glacier volume appears to have accelerated over the last decade.
- The frequency of heat waves has risen steadily since the 1960s. The percentage of the U.S. population impacted by heat waves has also increased.
So, we've identified the problem and the cause. Now it's time to start talking about the remedies. Stay tuned.
The one avid reader out there other than myself will be familiar with my Fact or Fiction pieces that I usually try to do on Fridays. These posts have been sporadic unfortunately and I think I'm going to move more towards addressing the problem and away from identifying the problem. The evidence is overwhelming and there are a number of dedicated sites that focus solely on the science such as RealClimate and Skeptical Science.
But before I do that, I want to draw your attention to recent reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The reports reinforce the scientific evidence that global warming is happening and is likely due to human activity and the increased production of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).
The NAS reports, covering the science, mitigation, and adaptation, are the most recent US studies which make the case for urgent action. The report on science concludes that a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. In its report on mitigation, NAS concludes that meeting internationally discussed targets for limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and associated increases in global average temperatures will require a major departure from business as usual in how the world uses and produces energy, and calls for some type of price on carbon. And finally, in its report on adaptation, NAS concludes that adaptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm - one that considers a range of possible future climate conditions and associated impacts, some well outside the realm of past experience.
The EPA, in its report entitled Climate Change Indicators in the United States, outlines recent climate impacts occurring in real time. Some of the key findings include:
- Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are increasing. Between 1990 and 2008, there has been about a 14 percent increase in emissions in the United States.
- Average temperatures are rising. Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the continental United States have occurred since 1990.
- Tropical cyclone intensity has increased in recent decades. Six of the 10 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s.
- Sea levels are rising. From 1993 to 2008, sea level rose twice as fast as the long-term trend.
- Glaciers are melting. Loss of glacier volume appears to have accelerated over the last decade.
- The frequency of heat waves has risen steadily since the 1960s. The percentage of the U.S. population impacted by heat waves has also increased.
So, we've identified the problem and the cause. Now it's time to start talking about the remedies. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Fact or Fiction Tuesday!
Folks, I know you've missed me. Especially Steve. Apologies for the big gap between this and my last post. Last week was brutal and this week I'm on vacation, but feeling the insatiable desire to blog out like it's 1999.
Let's get back in the swing of things with a Fact or Fiction Friday, even though it's Tuesday. Are you ready? Take a deep breath and read this important disclaimer before you enter the abyss.
Fact or fiction: climate models are unreliable. Shall we rock out to the Jeopardy theme song while you're pondering this one? Wow, my kingdom for a synthesizer.
But I digress. The answer is . . . FICTION! "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."
There are really three critical issues highlighted in SkepticalScience on this point. The first is fairly straightforward and that is, no one has created a model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without factoring in CO2 warming. The second is the distinction between weather and climate. I'll let SkepticalScience do all the talking on this one.
The last point is one I hope will stick with you if nothing else does. It deals with uncertainty. Do we know enough to act? Yes, we do. We will never have 100% certainty but no one in their right mind waits to act until they do. Many of the impacts highlighted in the 2007 report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have a 95% chance of happening. Do we really need 96%, 99%, or 100% to take action? If 95 doctors said you were sick, would you believe the 5 who said you weren't?
As always, please check out SkepticalScience to learn more about this and other arguments regularly touted by those who reject the science of climate change.
Let's get back in the swing of things with a Fact or Fiction Friday, even though it's Tuesday. Are you ready? Take a deep breath and read this important disclaimer before you enter the abyss.
Fact or fiction: climate models are unreliable. Shall we rock out to the Jeopardy theme song while you're pondering this one? Wow, my kingdom for a synthesizer.
But I digress. The answer is . . . FICTION! "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."
There are really three critical issues highlighted in SkepticalScience on this point. The first is fairly straightforward and that is, no one has created a model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without factoring in CO2 warming. The second is the distinction between weather and climate. I'll let SkepticalScience do all the talking on this one.
A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.
The last point is one I hope will stick with you if nothing else does. It deals with uncertainty. Do we know enough to act? Yes, we do. We will never have 100% certainty but no one in their right mind waits to act until they do. Many of the impacts highlighted in the 2007 report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have a 95% chance of happening. Do we really need 96%, 99%, or 100% to take action? If 95 doctors said you were sick, would you believe the 5 who said you weren't?
As always, please check out SkepticalScience to learn more about this and other arguments regularly touted by those who reject the science of climate change.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Another study debunks "global cooling"
Here is a great, if slightly long/technical, article discussing a draft study debunking the theory of "global cooling". You avid GreenMachine readers will have seen my "Fact or Fiction Friday" post two days ago on the subject.
Like I've said before, having a reasonable debate about the science is one thing. But peddling the same tired arguments day in and day out is only delaying the implementation of policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid dangerous climate change. Hopefully this latest study will put the kibosh on these misguided tactics.
Like I've said before, having a reasonable debate about the science is one thing. But peddling the same tired arguments day in and day out is only delaying the implementation of policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid dangerous climate change. Hopefully this latest study will put the kibosh on these misguided tactics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
