Category Archives: Climate Change

Nuclear Winter: The Evidence and the Risks

Posted on by

nuclear-winterThis book by Owen Greene, Ian Percival, and Irene Ridge reminded me of Carl Sagan’s public campaign to frighten people about nuclear weapons while I wondered why what happened after a nuclear holocaust would be more frightening than the holocaust itself. I thought I should educate myself about what frightened people more than the direct effects of a nuclear detonation. The book mentions that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences published a study in 1982 that the smoke from nuclear explosions could “…blot out nearly all the sunlight from half of Earth for weeks on end. The key factor that scientists had neglected for over thirty years was smoke!” The warning prompted five American scientists; Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan (revered in Nuclear Winter circles as TTAPS) to calculate that “…summer could be turned into winter…” Nuclear explosions would ignite fires of everything combustible in and around cities. The smoke would combine with the ejected dust to create a long list of effects. Harvests would be reduced for two years or more, countless plants and animals would become extinct, there would be deaths from collapse of medical services, famine, and epidemics. “Human suffering would be world-wide and on a scale almost beyond comprehension.

The book presents a list of nuclear weapons stockpiles as of 1985 (predating India and China). The overall total was estimated at 49,600 with a total yield of approximately 15,000 megatons. For those who often question why there were so many weapons, there is a listing of “Targeting Categories” from the U.S. Department of Defense dated March, 1980. The listing which was said to be “only illustrative,” includes: Soviet Nuclear Forces (more than 2,000 targets), Military and Political Leadership (about 3,000), Conventional Military Forces (about 15,000),Economic and Industrial Targets (about 15,000)

Soviet priorities were said to “…be similar.” Continue reading →

Changing Your Mind is Hard

Posted on by

It’s hard for people – any of us – to admit being wrong. The more stridently you take a position in public, the harder it is to recant. Science is one field where changing your mind when the evidence requires it is applauded.

As Carl Sagan once said:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.”

A few significant changes have occurred in my lifetime: plate tectonics replaced continental drift, an asteroid impact was accepted as finishing off most dinosaurs while birds were accepted as the last of the “avian dinosaurs”, and the Big Bang theory of cosmology replaced Steady State. There are many other examples.

It’s hard enough to admit to error in front of like-minded colleagues, so when you tackle a topic that is highly emotional, changing your mind may lose you a lot of friends. Because of this I want to commend Mark Lynas.

Lynas is a British author whose current focus is climate change. But in the 1990s he helped start the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement. In 2008, he was still “penning screeds” (his words) attacking the use of GMOs.

In 2013, he addressed the Oxford Farming Conference with a change of mind:
“I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.” See the full text of his talk here where he details why he changed his mind. (Updated url: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ I wonder why it changed?)

Lynas has a new book out and many older titles still on Amazon, so a cynic might say controversy sells books. But – unless I find evidence to the contrary – I say, congratulations Mark Lynas. I hope that someday when I need it (and no doubt I will) I find in myself the integrity you’ve shown.

This blog has more posts about GMOs.

A Criticism of Climate Change Science

Posted on by

The following was provided by Dr. William F. Downs, a Geochemist and friend. I’ve done a tiny bit of editing, and added a comment at the end. The timing is perfect as a contrast to  the review posted today.

earth climate changeThere is little controversy over the fact that the temperature of Earth is currently rising and has been since the end of the “Little Ice Age” which lasted from about 1380 AD until circa 1780 AD.  Previously the climate experienced a warm period which was called the “Millennium Optimum” (c. 850 AD – 1300 AD) when I studied it during the 1960s.  It was considered “optimum” because the Vikings were able to expand into and develop farms in Greenland and grapes that had been planted in Britain by the Romans produced wine.  By the early 1300s, Greenland was no longer able to sustain agriculture and the Viking society in Greenland had collapsed.  There was another warming period termed the “Roman Warm Period” that existed in the first few centuries after the time of Christ.  The “Little Ice Age” was documented by Monks in Monasteries along the roads to Rome as Alpine Pilgrims on their way to Rome told their stories of glacial destruction of their Villages.

The temperatures and CO2 contents of the atmosphere in the past are estimated by measuring the oxygen isotope ratios and concentrations of CO2 released from ice cores collected from Vostok Glacier in Antarctica.  These data have been collected from ice that had formed during the last 100,000 years or so.  These data indicate that the current temperature level is lower than those experienced during the Millennial Warming Period. Continue reading →

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Report

Posted on by

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report from Copenhagen, Denmark that said, in summary, “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero this century…” (I’m assuming they don’t intend to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans and other animals.)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”  The report once again mentions the “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice…”

I’ve expressed my opinions on this subject many times, and I still consider myself a denier, as the global warming advocates enjoy calling people who don’t agree with them. I still think the earth may warm, or it may cool, but it is certain the climate will change just as it always has.

I intend to focus on Antarctic and Arctic ice levels posted on the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. Recent peak levels in the Antarctic set a new record over the period of satellite observations. Global warming fans say that isn’t important. I reason, perhaps naively, that warmer temperatures probably would result in less ice and not more. Continue reading →

Climate Science is Not Settled

Posted on by

There was an excellent article by Steven E. Koonin by this title in the Wall Street Journal. The subtitle was “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy…” The author refuses to be on either side of what has become an increasingly contentious argument about whether or not man’s activities are leading us to a climate disaster that, according to some of our politicians, beats terrorism as the greatest threat. The article adds refreshing reason to the discussion. He was undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during President Obama’s first term. Perhaps those who are convinced that climate science is settled will dismiss his ideas because one previous position was chief scientist of British Petroleum. I suggest you will learn something regardless of your position if you chose to read his article.

The article leads with the statement that the claim that “Climate Science is settled” “…has distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment…it has also inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” The author observes that the crucial question isn’t whether the climate is changing “The climate has always changed and always will.” The average global temperature did increase by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and there is little doubt carbon dioxide levels increased in the atmosphere and influenced the climate. But the author follows those observations with, “The impact of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.” He also writes that he has “…come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.” Continue reading →

Costs of Fighting Global Warming

Posted on by

I was inspired to weigh in again on the issue of global warming by an article titled “Post-coal Pueblo left out in the cold” by Lydia DePillis of the Washington Post. Under the headline there is a picture of Pueblo resident Sharon Garcia who “…doesn’t allow lights to be left on in rooms that aren’t being used.” She had her power shut off in 2010, and is constantly struggling to make ends meet running a day care center. She is struggling with paying her electricity bill because the residential rate per kilowatt hour has increased 26 percent since 2010.

The reasons for the increase are complex, and I suggest you read the entire article. The impact of regulatory requirements on utility companies is what attracted my attention. A big part of the problem is caused by “…coal plants shutting down as Colorado transitions to renewable energy.” Black Hills Energy provides power to Pueblo, and Colorado’s 2010 Clean Air—Clean Jobs act caused them to shutter three older plants that would have been too expensive to overhaul. Utility regulators guarantee Black Hills an 8.53 percent return, which gives it an incentive to close nearly all of its relatively inexpensive coal capacity, build new plants, and pass the costs to consumers. Continue reading →