Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad
  • Podcast

    Mark Cochrane: The Scientific Argument for Climate Change

    Is it happening? And what can we do?
    by Adam Taggart

    Saturday, July 20, 2013, 5:12 PM

In this week's podcast, Chris sits down with Mark Cochrane to discuss global climate change.

Mark is a professor and senior research scientist at the Geospatial Science Center of Excellence (the GSCE) at South Dakota State University. He is also the creator of Peak Prosperity's excellent forum thread on climate change.

In this interview, Chris and Mark explore the science behind the study of climate change, what it tells us, and what steps individuals concerned about the trend can take.

As a scientist, Mark sees an abundance of data that shows the planet is indeed warming. The key questions that concern him are By how much? and How fast?

The whole crux of climate change just comes down to the energy balance of the planet. If things are stable, where we have the same amount of imported energy from the sun and exported energy with the heat, then the climate will be fairly stable, it will be balanced out. If we lose more energy than we gain over a period of time, then the planet would cool and we get things like the Ice Ages that we are familiar with in our past. Conversely, though, if we are gaining more energy than we lose, the planet will warm, like it is doing right now.

Climate change science can sound incredibly complex. But, there are, in fact, just three mechanisms that we could come up with that would cause the planet to warm the way it is.

The first would be, the sun could be getting brighter, providing a bigger energy budget. We have satellites measuring solar radiation very closely and have for decades. We know for a fact the sun is not getting brighter, and we are actually coming out of one of the dimmest periods over the last hundred years, where we have these 11-year sunspot cycles, and we were at a major low in these cycles – it was the lowest in over a hundred years. We should have actually had global cooling over the last decade. Instead, we have had something that has been apparently more flat in terms of global temperatures. But a lot of energy is still accumulating in the oceans.

The second way we could potentially warm the planet, if we were trying to, would be to try to make the planet darker, so thereby we would absorb more solar energy and reduce our albedo tax. So, it is the difference between if you are out barefoot and you step onto white concrete on a hot, sunny day – not so bad. But, if you step onto the blacktop, the asphalt, it is very hot on your feet. So, if we get darker, we would absorb more of the sunlight and turn it into heat. We have been measuring the energy reflecting back off the earth for decades as well, and we know for a fact that the planet is not getting darker. If anything, it is getter brighter, due to the amount of atmospheric haze that we have created through pollution.

The third possible alternative for warming the planet is that, for some reason or other, the rate of energy dissipation, the thermal energy leaving the planet, is slowing down. We are not losing it as fast as we used to. This occurs because of changes in the atmospheric concentrations of the so-called greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane. When we look at the measurements we have, in fact, the rate of change corresponds very closely with the observed rate of the increase of those gases and the warming that we are experiencing. Measurements, theory and observations all support one another. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is the only scientific theory that accurately explains what is occurring. We have had over a hundred years of scientists trying to prove this theory wrong, and there is as close to unanimous scientific agreement on this as you ever going to find, with at least 97% consensus among scientists who actually work on the subject.

And, when I mention anthropogenic greenhouse warming as a theory here, I mean that it is a theory that is on par with the theory of gravity or evolution. Scientists are still investigating the nuances and implications of climate change, and the modeling of potential future climate projections is active and a continually developing field of study. But, the existence of ongoing and geologically rapid global climate change is as settled as science gets. There is no remaining scientific debate about the subject. The scientific discussions are only about the rate at which the warming is occurring and what the implications are of this climate change as it happens.

Years of moderating discussion on this topic have taught us that it's a highly sensitive one that people often bring a lot of emotion to, as passionate belief systems operate on many sides of the issue. Civil discourse can often be a challenge.

We've received much urging from readers to have a "broad daylight" discussion on this topic, which is understandable and something we're happy to do. But we realize doing so will likely generate some major differences of opinion, so we ask that comments made below be respectful and in-line with our civility guidelines (i.e., our moderators are on high alert).

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Mark Cochrane (55m:10s):

Transcript

Chris Martenson: Welcome to this Peak Prosperity podcast. I am your host, Chris Martenson, and as promised from an earlier interview, today we are going to discuss climate change with a well-known and widely published and cited scientist who also happens to chair the Climate Change thread at Peak Prosperity, for which he has my deep admiration for both the style and form of the conversation being held there.

We are talking with Dr. Mark Cochrane today, who is currently conducting climate-related research in the United States, Australia, Brazil, and Indonesia that explores how climate change is affecting the characteristics and impacts of wildfires on ecosystems and human societies. He is also professor and senior research scientist at the Geospatial Science Center of Excellence, the GSCE, at South Dakota State University, and he holds a Doctorate Degree in Ecology from Penn State University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Engineering from MIT.

Mark’s earth-system science research focuses on understanding spatial patterns, interactions in synergisms between multiple physical and biological factors that affect ecosystems. This look at complexity is exactly what you need when you are looking at the economy, energy, or the environment in this case, climate change. His interdisciplinary work combines ecology, climate science, remote sensing, and other fields of study to provide landscape perspectives of the dynamic processes involved in land cover change.

I have invited Mark on to share his expertise with all of us and publicly dig into the topic of climate change. Mark, thank you so much for your work on the site, and thank you for joining us today.

Mark Cochrane: You are welcome. Thank you for having me.

Chris Martenson: Mark, we hear a lot of discussion about climate change these days. What is your interpretation of the science?

Mark Cochrane: That is a good question. To discuss climate change, you first have to consider what climate actually is. We are worried about it changing, but we do not generally think about what climate is, because we live in it every day. Standard answer is that climate is simply average weather over a long period of time, where 30 years has become sort of a de facto standard unit of climate time. It could be more than that, but generally we need at least 30 years to feel like we have a good measure on a region’s climate.

What climate really describes, though, is the average patterns of energy redistribution that form as the solar energy that strikes the planet moves from warmer to cooler regions throughout the years. In any given year, the earth gets a fairly consistent amount of solar energy or energy budget, if you will. The energy does not arrive evenly over the earth’s surface, though, because the planet is a sphere, and it is spinning and covered with varying amounts of clouds, land, water, and ice.

Most people will be familiar with the “blue marble” photograph of the earth from space that the Apollo astronauts took back in the 1970s. What we are seeing there is the sunlight that is reflected from the planet. So, of all the solar energy that arrives, roughly 30% of it is reflected right back off into space. Therefore, it does not have any climate effect whatsoever. We can think of that as what I would think of as an “albedo tax,” which simply means that we lose some of our solar budget, and more of it if it gets shinier, and a little less if the planet gets darker for some reason. That would be more clouds or less clouds, more ice or less ice.

Of the remaining solar energy that arrives, maybe 1% gets used by plants and algae to conduct photosynthesis and produce all of the food that supports every living creature on the planet. The lions’ share of the solar energy though nearly 70% gets absorbed by the oceans, the land, or the atmosphere and is converted from light into heat. All of that heat energy is what actually drives the climate of our planet. Okay, this heat warms the planet, it evaporates moisture, it creates weather patterns in the atmosphere and currents in the oceans. It redistributes all that excess energy from one location to another. This heat dissipates out into space as long-wave thermal radiation, during both the day and night throughout the year.

If we did not have atmosphere, our daily temperatures would be kind of like that of the moon, where days would be 235 degrees Fahrenheit and nights would cool to minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit. And, the atmosphere, it just acts kind of like the glass of a greenhouse, where the sunlight can pass through easily, but the glass reflects back a portion of the heat energy that the planet radiates. This greenhouse effect slows the rate of energy lost, just enough to keep us at what we consider a nice, comfortable global temperature. It is kind of like what a blanket does when it keeps you warm at night by slowing the rate at which you lose body heat.

The whole crux of climate change just comes down to the energy balance of the planet. If things are stable, where we have the same amount of imported energy from the sun and exported energy with the heat, then the climate will be fairly stable, it will be balanced out. If we lose more energy than we gain over a period of time, then the planet would cool and we get things like the Ice Ages that we are familiar with in our past. Conversely, though, if we are gaining more energy than we lose, the planet will warm, like it is doing right now.

Climate change science can sound incredibly complex. But, there are, in fact, just three mechanisms that we could come up with that would cause the planet to warm the way it is. The first would be, the sun could be getting brighter, providing a bigger energy budget. We have satellites measuring solar radiation very closely and have for decades. We know for a fact the sun is not getting brighter, and we are actually coming out of one of the dimmest periods over the last hundred years, where we have these 11-year sunspot cycles, and we were at a major low in these cycles – it was the lowest in over a hundred years. We should have actually had global cooling over the last decade. Instead, we have had something that has been apparently more flat in terms of global temperatures. But a lot of energy is still accumulating in the oceans.

The second way we could potentially warm the planet, if we were trying to, would be to try to make the planet darker, so thereby we would absorb more solar energy and reduce our albedo tax. So, it is the difference between if you are out barefoot and you step onto white concrete on a hot, sunny day – not so bad. But, if you step onto the blacktop, the asphalt, it is very hot on your feet. So, if we get darker, we would absorb more of the sunlight and turn it into heat. We have been measuring the energy reflecting back off the earth for decades as well, and we know for a fact that the planet is not getting darker. If anything, it is getter brighter, due to the amount of atmospheric haze that we have created through pollution.

The third possible alternative for warming the planet is that, for some reason or other, the rate of energy dissipation, the thermal energy leaving the planet, is slowing down. We are not losing it as fast as we used to. This occurs because of changes in the atmospheric concentrations of the so-called greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane. When we look at the measurements we have, in fact, the rate of change corresponds very closely with the observed rate of the increase of those gases and the warming that we are experiencing. Measurements, theory and observations all support one another. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is the only scientific theory that accurately explains what is occurring. We have had over a hundred years of scientists trying to prove this theory wrong, and there is as close to unanimous scientific agreement on this as you ever going to find, with at least 97% consensus among scientists who actually work on the subject.

And, when I mention anthropogenic greenhouse warming as a theory here, I mean that it is a theory that is on par with the theory of gravity or evolution. Scientists are still investigating the nuances and implications of climate change, and the modeling of potential future climate projections is active and a continually developing field of study. But, the existence of ongoing and geologically rapid global climate change is as settled as science gets. There is no remaining scientific debate about the subject. The scientific discussions are only about the rate at which the warming is occurring and what the implications are of this climate change as it happens.

Chris Martenson: So, we are putting this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that is one of the primary components of the greenhouse gases. It is measured in parts per million. How effective is it at trapping that thermal radiation? I assume there is this long-wave infrared radiation that is trying to get back out into space. It bumps into a CO2 molecule, which absorbs it, converts that back into heat energy, and becomes an active molecule bouncing around. And these are measured in, I guess – we got close to 400 parts per million this year. How effective is CO2 at trapping this thermal radiation?

Mark Cochrane: Oh, very effective, but, it is only part of the equation. You know, what you describe is exactly right. We have these thermal waves of heat that go up to the atmosphere, and instead of being this nice, clear atmosphere for sunlight, it is a slightly opaque, hazed atmosphere for those wavelengths of energy. And things like carbon dioxide or water vapor will occasionally capture one of the waves. The whole matter comes down to when it releases that energy again. What happens is a 50% chance it releases it up towards space and a 50% chance that it sends it right back down to the earth. So an increasing percentage of the energy that is being released is basically back and forth in the atmosphere for a little longer.

I should mention that water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas we have. It has gone up about 6% in the last three decades because of the amount of warming. We have greenhouse gases like CO2 and nitrous oxide and such that warm the planet. But, as we warm the planet more, we increase the amount of water vapor that can be held in the atmosphere. As we increase the amount of water vapor, we warm the planet even more. So the CO2 level is a bit like a thermostat. It starts the process, but it is not the actual main culprit, if we will, in causing the warming.

Chris Martenson: Right, so lots of water vapor, it is actually we all know water is very, very good at conducting heat and storing it and all sorts of things like that. So we are here at 400 parts per million. Historically, when was the last time we were at this level, and where are we going in terms of temperature, as we cast forward and think about going to some higher, 420, 430, 440? Is there a direct relationship that we can sort of map out that is reasonably certain, or is this where a lot of the controversy still lies?

Mark Cochrane: Yeah, there is a fair amount controversy, just because we do not know how fast things will occur. We would have some idea more if we were to, say, go into an equilibrium state. If we could say, We are going to hold at 400 parts per million, then we are basically saying that we are going to push ourselves two, three, or more million years into the past in terms of a climate analog. As we increase the levels even more, though, we push further and further. If we keep doing business as usual, where we try to exponentially grow the amount of fossil fuel emissions, we are talking about putting the climate back 20 to 30 million years.

Now, how do you really get there, and what happens in the meantime are the issues. We know that if we were to go back, say, three million years, like we are planning now, if you will, that almost all ice on the planet would melt. It would not melt overnight, though; it would take centuries. But we would have a recipe for increasing sea levels by 50 to 70 meters. As we push beyond that, we are really entering into what we call “no-analog futures.” We do not have any past conditions that simulate what would be going on, so we get more speculative on what it would mean. The larger concern is not so much what level it would be as just how fast we are getting there, because everything on the planet has to adjust to these changing temperatures.

Chris Martenson: Let us talk about that adjustment process, because there is another facet to this story that I have been following, which is the idea of ocean acidification. And as I understand the process, CO2 in the atmosphere exists in equilibrium with CO2 in the ocean, so it is dissolving back and forth from the aqueous to the air environment. And so we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the ocean as well. In turn, some of the CO2 turns into a form of acid, and that starts to drop the pH of the ocean. Now, the ocean has got very, as I understand it, very, very sensitive pH conditions for certain types of phytoplankton and maybe the calcium-carbonate-wearing animals of our lives: the snails, the bivalves, the other things like that. Where are we with the ocean acidification story as potentially something that could be as disruptive as weather pattern changes, which we will get to in a minute.?

Mark Cochrane: Yeah, this is kind of a poor relation to what we think of as climate change, and I call it the “other CO2 problem.”

Chris Martenson: [Laughs] Right.

Mark Cochrane: No, it is quite serious, and under-recognized as a serious problem. You know, we look back through history, we have, you know, little air bubbles trapped in ice going back over 800,000 years and we were never above 300 parts per million in terms of CO2. Now we are bumping up against 400 parts per million. What happens is just what you said. We emit all this carbon, but it does not all just pile up in the atmosphere. About a quarter of it gets taken up by vegetation, and another quarter of it ends up equalizing the partial pressure in the oceans. So only about 50% piles up in the atmosphere right now.

However, as this sink occurs in the ocean waters, it basically dissolves in the form of carbonic acid, so everything that lives there is now living in something that is more and more like living in a soda bottle instead of normal waters. Things like all the phytoplankton that require calcite to form little shells and structures are losing that ability, such that through many of the types of phytoplankton and coccolithophores and other organisms, their shell densities are dropping by 30 to 40% at the current levels. As this continues, they will have an increasingly hard time forming these sorts of bodies.

So, yeah, I do not think this necessarily means that we will have a complete collapse, if you will, of photosynthetic organisms in the oceans, but we will be selecting for different types more and more over time and causing a lot of damage. This is also one of the foundations for the whole food web of the oceans, either on a plankton or on a pterapod, little sea snails that are abundant in polar oceans. They are also having trouble making shells, and therefore, we will not have as many. We do not think that is important, but that is the base of the food chain for things like salmon or whales and seals. Krill are having a hard time making shells, and they are one of the main food sources for much of the ocean’s creatures.

If we look in the future right now, by 2050, the most recent science I have seen shows that the level of ocean acidity could basically make shell-building organisms a thing of the past for, say, much of the West Coast. So, this would put an end to things like the oyster industry all along the Pacific Northwest, who are already having serious problems. And the problems they are having now are from deep ocean waters that are washing up that are basically representing the carbon levels that were in the atmosphere in the 1950s and 1960s. So even if we were to somehow stop increasing levels right now, this problem would worsen for another 50 years.

Chris Martenson: Fifty years I want to talk about the pace of change, because that is a concept you brought up before. Certainly, the world has cycled through warmer periods and cooler periods in the past. It has had carbon dioxide go up and down, but, usually, I guess, in the record, you would say these changes happened over hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands, and it seems like we are doing it in, what, a hundred and fifty years? But, really, the pace of carbon dioxide addition to the atmosphere is, as I understand, a doubling process and exponential functions. It would seem that I will make a guess here probably in the last 30 years, we have put as much in the atmosphere as we put it in all the years prior, just taking a guess at that. If you have a good number on that, let me know.

It is the pace of change that we are worried about here, because ocean organisms could respond over time if selective adaptations and pressures would certainly allow some to arise where others were now absent. But if the pace is too quick, you are talking about the potential of a big gap in the overall phyla and flora and fauna and all the other things that we are seeing out there right now in terms of complexity and diversity. Right?

Mark Cochrane: Yes, it is just that. It is how fast things occur. To put things in perspective, business as usual if we keep this up, we are looking at potentially warming the planet by somewhere between four and six degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Now, trying to put that number in some perspective is always difficult. These big average numbers do not mean much, because, you know, you might have experienced that much temperature change since you got up this morning. When we talk globally, though, five to six degrees Celsius change is the difference between the depth of the last Ice Age and what the planet experiences today.

Now, coming out of the last age took over a thousand years, so we had ten times as much time for that amount of change to occur. In terms of CO2-driven type climate change, the only analog we really have is about 30 million years ago, the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum, where, for a variety of reasons, we had a massive carbon release into the atmosphere that is equivalent to what we have been doing over the last century. But, that, again, took about a thousand to two thousand years to occur, so it is not a direct analog. We are doing things faster than was done at that point. We are creating huge changes that will take centuries to play out. But, they will cause an increasing number of problems for us right now.

So, yes, in the oceans, for example, as we increase this and increase it rapidly, things that cannot adjust quickly enough will diminish considerably. To my knowledge, the only thing that seems to be favored by this change right now would be jellyfish.

Chris Martenson: And, they are doing quite well, I understand.

Mark Cochrane: Oh, yes; reproducing well.

Chris Martenson: Excellent. So I want to talk, then, about how most of us experience climate is in the form of weather. Here in New England, it has been very steamy for a while, and that is because the jet stream, as I understand, has formed kind of an unusual loop for this time of the year. It is looping down very, very far, so that last week, I believe, Texas had cooler temperatures than I did here in Massachusetts – a bit of an oddity. And, it was just last year the Midwest was in a drought and this year there is too much rain to plant in many areas. So, what is the relationship as far as we understand it between climate change and weather stability? I care about stability, because we have settled around areas which have rainfall that is predictable and good soils that are formed in the process of that. The point being that, weather stability means food stability, so there is a direct connection for me. But how do we start to put weather and climate together?

Mark Cochrane: That is another great question. One I have actually got people working on right now –

Chris Martenson: Excellent.

Mark Cochrane: – trying to put numbers to some of this, because when we hear all of this, we get this big averages, like whatever; one degree sea warming, and that means absolutely nothing to anybody. And you cannot adjust or adapt to one, two, three, four degrees change of temperature, because it does not translate into what happens where you live. So, you know, the models going forward are difficult, because you have to bring down the scale to a level that is meaningful. But we do not need models; we can look at what has just happened in the last hundred years. We have plenty of weather records, and what we see is that, yes, the weather seems to be getting more variable. That kind of fits with what most people have experienced.

So, on average, things may not have changed so much, but, for example, where I live, two years ago we had the Red Cross in town because we were flooding. We had had twice as much rainfall as had ever been experienced here in over a hundred years. Last year, much of the state was at drought levels that were below the Dust Bowl. This year our season is delayed well over a month because it was too cool and wet to plant.

So, we have general variability going on, but we do also see some of these patterns that seem to be forming. So, what we think is happening with this is, we have these large-scale atmospheric movements; we directly heat areas of the equator, more so than the poles. We get a transfer of air and heat going north, which creates these large cells. We have had these down to about 33 degrees latitude, then we have a kind of a mid-latitude cell, and then we have a polar cell on top of that. Well, right now, we are melting the Arctic Sea ice at a phenomenal rate, and far beyond what was being predicted even a few years ago. And what this means is that more heat is piling up in the polar regions than we would expect.

Why is that important? Well, as we do this, we change the thermal gradient between what the energy level is and the polar area is and what the energy level is down in our temperate areas, like where you live. So what happens is, now the boundary between those two gets a little fuzzier. That boundary tends to formed by what we call the jet stream. As we reduce that temperature difference between those two areas, the jet stream slows down. It is not as strong, and it is kind of like a river, and it starts meandering and making these big, deep meanders far south and far north. You know, we experience whether it’s cool weather or hot weather, but it extends far to the north, as well as to the south.

So, there is a reason why, in science, we do not really call it global warming; we call it global climate change, because although the planet is warming, what we experience is an increased variability of the weather. Sometimes it will be cooler; sometimes it will be warmer. On average, it will be warmer, but we do not live the average; we live whatever happens day in and day out. So with these big meanders, what can happen is, it allows a lot of cool, polar air to pour down in some regions, but, it allows a lot of tropical air to pour northward or in other regions.

And these patterns can become effectively stuck a blocking pattern. They could stay in place for weeks or months. So we will have things like a winter where it is freezing in Europe and we (here) are roasting. A couple of years ago, we had no frost from February on, which is ridiculous for the northern plains. But these changes are not going to be the same year in and year out. One year you may have incredible warmth; the next year you might have incredible cold.

Everything we do is premised upon this idea of stability. Like, when you got up this morning, you probably did not throw on a winter coat. Why? Because it is July; you know it is going to be warm (in the U.S.), it is just a question of how warm. Well, everything that grows out there, it basically grows there because, on average, it is fairly stable and dependable weather. But as the weather becomes less dependable, less stable, it creates a lot of stress in all of the ecosystems.

Chris Martenson: I noticed that very personally. Last year was a very dry year. We got 0.04 inches [of precipitation] in April, which is a really important time for insect formation and hatchings, so we had a really miserable insect hatch, which I actually did not mind as far as the mosquitoes were concerned. But over our back field, there is a bunch of bobolinks that live there, and these are wonderful birds with great, melodic sounds. They live on insects. They moved in in their usual nesting pattern and stayed about a week, and then left, because there was nothing there for them to eat. It was the first year that we had seen them just absolutely go somewhere else. I do not know where they went, to me, that was directly because of a very anomalous year where we had 0.04 inches of rain in April and very above-average warm temperatures. And, then, this year it has been almost the exact opposite very cool, very delayed, very wet, all the way up through mid-June.

So, we say, you know the old economist joke, if you have one hand in boiling hot water and one hand in ice water, on average, you are fine. So what you are saying is that, even though we are experiencing something like a degree, an extra Celsius degree of increase, what we are going to experience is wider extremes, that on average, probably still do not look that bad. But it is the extremes that unbalance all sorts of situations.

Mark Cochrane: Yes, and that is one of the things we are working on now, looking at, say, the last hundred years of climate, and bringing it down as fine as we can, so we can say something about different regions. What we see is interesting, though, in that even the variability that is occurring is not the same everywhere. It is not that everywhere is getting more extreme. Some areas are getting more extreme on say, heat, but not so much on cold. Other areas are getting both extreme;, they are getting both more likely to have extreme heat and more likely to have extreme cold, which does not seem to fit with the model of global warming, per se. Other areas are actually becoming, seemingly more stable. They are more likely to have what we would think of as normal weather. Now, there are not that many, but some areas are.

So there is a reason people are confused about this whole subject, because not everybody is experiencing the same type of change. If you go further north, though, they are not so doubtful about it, because as you go north, we get polar amplification. They are seeing dramatically warmer temperatures. In other regions, not so much. So it is the same type of change everywhere, but, yes, what you are talking about is the way we are seeing it.

There is the average and my students know I am not one for averages, because the averages hide so much information. I mean, would you create the average shoe size and then sell it to the entire planet? It would not make any sense, but that is the way we talk about climate change. We did these average numbers of change that really do not tell us how that change will show up in our lives.

Chris Martenson: Let us now talk about the IPCC and how it relates to climate change science. I know that in the American press, there has been a lot of controversy and things said back and forth. Can you bring some clarity to this conversation for us, and just talk to us about what it is and what it does?

Mark Cochrane: Yeah, the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this is kind of a big bugaboo for climate change. It is a favorite target of deniers or those who lambast the findings as being alarmist or radical or somehow agenda-driven. It is a good question, how did this supposed rogue organization arise.

It is currently under the United Nations and such. I think most people would be pretty surprised to learn that the IPCC was initiated in the late 1980s by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who were hardly radical environmentalists. The intent was to forestall self-appointed committees of scientists from making what they considered alarmist statements about climate change.

So the IPCC was created to be the utmost authority on climate matters by bringing together scientists from around the world to take comprehensive looks at all of the science. The IPCC does not conduct any science. It does not study climate change. It just takes all of the climate change studies that are out there and tries to condense them into one giant report. It was designed effectively to be efficient, unwieldy, and conservative in its outcomes, because we need 100% consensus of all authors for everything that is reported.

Now, having 100% consensus on anything is difficult. It has slowed down, because we need representatives that have to be appointed from every single government in the world. That is more than 130 countries. The authors have to go through repeated rounds of report drafting to reach consensus. So the science that is reported is the most conservative statement possible. It is not alarmist. This is the best-case scenario, basically, that we could expect.

The scientists who serve on these panels and do a lot of work do not get paid for any of this work. They have to volunteer their time. The last report in 2007 was about three volumes, roughly 3,000 pages of condensed research findings that almost nobody but masochistic scientists like myself read. The political appointees then get to edit what is the all-important summary for policy makers, which is kind of a Cliff Notes of the IPCC report. So these political appointees, not scientists, go through that document and argue, literally, over every single word.

Individual countries can hold the process for days until they get what they want. In the last round, 2007, at the behest of China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, certain figures that were considered to be alarming were deleted, and the wording was changed to state the scientific confidence that anthropogenic global climate was occurring to be less strong than the scientists indicated. Why would they do that? Well, currently, China is the largest consumer and Saudi Arabia and Russia are the largest producers of fossil fuels.

So there is a political agency out there, but it is not the one most people think. If we look at how it is constructed, Dr. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, is a favorite target of those who want to deny climate change or lambast the IPCC, and so it makes you wonder, how did this radical get to be in charge of it? Well, back in 2002, our own State Department in the United States refused to re-nominate the highly regarded atmospheric chemist, Dr. Robert T. Watson, who had headed the IPCC since 1996. His views on emissions control were considered too threatening by energy industry lobbyists. Therefore, at their behest, then-president George W. Bush pressed for and got Indian engineer Dr. Pachauri appointed as a more palatable chair for the IPCC. It is ironic to me, at least, that the same groups that designed and formed and continually meddle with the IPCC do not like the message that they are getting from it.

The IPCC soldiers on, remarkably effective, and it is going to be coming out with at least the initial reports in September of this year, after reviewing about 60,000 scientific papers on climate change.

Chris Martenson: Are you – to 100% consensus, really?

Mark Cochrane: Yes.

Chris Martenson: [Laughs] That is, I cannot get [consensus] with three other people in the room. I do not know how that would be done.

Mark Cochrane: Basically, they wear you down, because it goes round and round and round until they find some wording that everybody can agree to accept.

Chris Martenson: So it stems to reason, particularly on the last stage of that whole thing, on who writes the summary. Being that they are of a political nature, there is going to be a lot of defensive business-as-usual. There is obviously a very strong component from the political side, from a corporate side, from even the cultural side, to just keep the status quo cooking along. No pun intended. So I assume that, yes, as you say, the IPCC is probably going to be putting out extremely conservative, or non-alarmist views on this, and that should be trackable, right? So the projections on sea ice that we are familiar with that have been badly whiffed upon by reality, were those projections the ones that came through the IPCC process?

Mark Cochrane: Well, there are a couple of things going on. One is, because the process is so cumbersome, the actual cutoff date for the science that is included is usually about two years earlier than the actual publication date. Otherwise, they would never be able to finish. But the other is that, yeah, you may have some results that point to more recent findings that may be more concerning, but they will be downplayed in terms of the changing amount of sea ice, obviously, if the models that were in place and the knowledge at the time definitely underestimated what was going on.

Sea level rise is the other major one that was really missed. The last report was talking about maybe 50 centimeters of rise by the end of the century, and literally, within months, it was pretty clear that we were looking at at least one to two meters of sea level rise. So, they were off by a factor of two to four there. That is because they are providing the conservative view of the science that was available up to the date when they cut off what was considered.

Chris Martenson: This whole thing speaks to the idea that these sorts of projections are extremely difficult to come up with. Because this is not just a non-linear system; it is multiple non-linear systems interacting with each other. How much is being reflected back, whether warming increases more of this to come out of the ground or that, or other changes. So, there is a lot of variable in this. We are learning as we go.

But what would an individual do, who is concerned about climate change, and how would they meaningfully prepare for or foster greater resilience if, ultimately, they feel uncertain about their ability to project what the changes are going to be in where they live? How do you begin to grapple with that?

Mark Cochrane: Yeah, that is another great question. It is one that countries, cities, communities, people everywhere are having to wrestle with. And there is a reason we call them “projections.” Nobody tries to predict what will happen, because there are too many variables, the biggest variable being how much will we continue to pump into the atmosphere. If you do not know that, you really cannot try to predict, but you can project if we do certain things like business-as-usual, keep doing what we are doing, or if we do a best-case scenario where we all try to go to green energy, we can kind of bound the problem.

I have been asked time and again, and kind of danced around it – what can you do; how do you prepare for climate change? I have hesitated on that, because basically, it is a hard subject to contemplate and difficult to encompass. With most aspects of climate change, I can simply relate the accumulated knowledge or the state of our understanding that science has at this time. I can just tell you basically what has been reported in the scientific literature, and I am covered, so to speak, as a scientist. You try to make sure that your sources are firm.

As we go forward, though, I do not have that kind of literature to work from, so I will talk about it here, but what I am going to be talking about are basically the speculation about what will happen, based on everything we know as we go forward. Or, what is already happening that we can actually see occurring.

So, climate has been remarkable stable, as we talked about, for about over the last ten thousand years. This encompasses all of recorded history, since we started agriculture. Through all that time, from the medieval warm period to the so-called Little Ice Age, and everything else, that global temperature has been plus or minus one degree Celsius, so the nominal mean temperature. Currently, we are proceeding outside of that range. In the lifetime of Homo sapiens, we have never experienced the warmth that we are currently on track to experience, so we do not know how this will work. We are going boldly where no human cultures have ever been before.

Being able to change the temperature of the planet by one or two degrees Celsius within a hundred years is astounding, and the current apparent trajectory of four to six degrees that we are on is completely unimaginable. So scientists look at this with some horrid fascination, because this is the sort of thought experiment we never thought could take place in reality. We are effectively terraforming the planet right now. We and all of our descendants are going to be guinea pigs of this experiment for the centuries to come.

So, if you have concern about these things, what do you do? Right now, I know I have concerns about the terrible debts that we are leaving for our children through our spendthrift ways. Well, we also have a giant climate debt that we have created. We have warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius, but we have already placed 0.8 degrees Celsius in the pipeline, so to speak. We could not stop it if we wanted to; it is already there. The earth now stores more than 25 times as much heat energy as we release from all of our energy uses each year, and that rate grows each year and will persist for centuries after we stop increasing the level of greenhouse gases. So, just as increasing amounts of energy can be used to stimulate economic growth, the increase in the planet’s energy budget increases the types and amounts of weather patterns that move energy from one place to another.

If we look at things like financial collapse, that would be awful, but it would probably be resolved in about a decade. When we look at resource scarcity, that is something that is going to plague us for maybe a century or more as we adjust technology and our expectations and the populations. But, with climate change, we have the equivalent of changing gravity, evolutionary speaking – literally, every living thing depends upon it. And so this will be the challenge for the next millennium, at least – that is a thousand years. We cannot make it better, but we can make it much, much worse.

Now, this is where we get stuck a lot of times. What can you actually do with this? What can you do to try to prepare? I will try to provide some idea of what may occur and some practical things you could do. First, what they say is, prepare for more – more variable weather from year to year and day to day, more flooding, more drought, more heat waves, more fires, more storms, more pests, more pathogens, more starvation, etc. The thing to realize is, climate change is not an event. It is an amplifier of events. So, in military jargon, it is a force multiplier. Nothing new is happening. Everything is just going to happen more frequently and severely than it used to. Every year climate change will turn things up a notch and all sorts of things from droughts, to storm surges, to other weather events will get more widespread or severe.

This basically acts as a growing tax on capital, resources, and lives that will get extracted every year from the world economy. The estimates out there now is that it is costing about 1.6% of global GDP due to these sorts of events. So, you can bet these things are not included in any of the economic growth models right now. Whether we like it or not, every year that we fail to act to diminish global emissions, we are voting for an environmental tax increase. Climate change is not a risk at every run; it is a chronic condition that we need to manage.

So, how is this going to show up? One thing I say is, we might want to consider heading for higher ground. If you live anywhere near the coast, you should be very aware of what your elevation is above sea level. As hurricane Sandy showed, you do not need to be at sea level to be damaged by rising sea levels; you just need to be within reach of the storm surge that comes with any given storm. And that reach is going to grow every year.

Until now, the federal and local governments have blissfully or even willfully ignored increasing risk of flooding. Just take a look what has happened in New Jersey and New York since hurricane Sandy. There is a new Federal advisory flood map that has been generated to reflect current reality. Why should somebody care? Well, because now you have to raise your home above the level of the flood plain, or face thousands of dollars in extra flood insurance costs. That could be up to $30,000 a year for a home. You do not have a choice. They are taking away the subsidy that most people did not realize they were getting for flood insurance. You either have to pay to place your home on stilts, or you are going to hemorrhage money to insurance year after year. And many people cannot afford it. If you decide to move up in the world, so to speak, and then try to plan ahead and put your house up an extra one to two meters, because that is where the ocean levels are going.

Coastlines are going to suffer in terms of property values, and they are more likely to be abandoned due to high insurance costs long before the high water level gets there in most cases. People may blame FEMA or the insurance companies, but it is simply a reflection of the reality that sea levels are rising, and it becomes a statistical fact that more frequent flooding will occur, so plan on that.

If you think you are okay just because you live further away from the coast, you should think again. One of the strongest signals of climate change around the world has been the growing intensity of rain storms. You do not necessarily get more rain; you just get it a whole lot faster. And what this means is that all of our current drainage systems are out-of-date. They can get overwhelmed under a given storm, so places that never flooded will start to flood, and places that occasionally flooded will flood more frequently. Hundred-year flooding events that are expected every hundred years are now becoming decadal events in many places.

You look at Fargo, North Dakota. They have had major flooding in four of the last five years. In the last ten years, they have had so-called ten-year floods every two years. Fifty-year floods have occurred three times in the last ten years. They are now proposing to build a $2 billion, 36-mile drainage canal to fix the problem. If they do that, that is great for them, but what it is going to do is just magnify all the downstream effects for Grand Forks, and Winnipeg up in Canada.

What you can do? Well, for one thing, check your insurance. If you do not have specific flood insurance, then most policies will not cover flooding if it comes over the ground versus through your roof. So if your roof blows off and you flood, you are covered. But if either a river or something else backs up and flooding comes in through your basement window, you will not be covered in most cases. If you have sump pumps or such, make sure that they are at your critical load for backup power. I have personally experienced this. I put a generator in my house and it saved my butt once, and I had already been flooded once. If you do not have sump pumps, consider installing them unless you have excellent drainage.

The flip-side of flooding is drought, and I think of this as dig deep. If you have a water table well, make sure it is deeper than you think you need, as deep as you can get, so that you will have water even in the low-water times. If you live in an arid region, be cognizant that more and more of the perennial streams will actually become seasonal in nature. As that water table drops, those streams will go away.

If you live in much of the Mountain West of the U.S., or any other region of the planet that gets much of its water supply from either melting snow packs or glaciers – that is, places like much of China, much of India, near the Alps in Europe, all the Andes of South America – then expect your water supply to be less certain. With melting snow packs and glaciers, the amount of water available in a region is diminished. As it gets diminished, there is going to be more tension around who gets that water. So it would behoove you to have more water storage capacity. Within the next one-to-two decades, there is going to be acute water shortages occurring in many parts of the world. This will lead to everything from rationing to wars. The more insecure your supply is, the more storage you need.

Plan on crop failures, whether it is your garden or world grain stocks. Expect the yields to be more variable from year to year, with an emphasis on reduced yields. Having floods one year and drought the next may average out to be normal, but crops do not grow during average weather; they grow in whatever day-to-day weather occurs. How can you adapt? Well, one thing you can do is plan on more variety. Plant cultivars that are cold and heat tolerant, drought and water tolerant. Do not try to optimize your annual yield for a given year; hedge your bets by planting to improve your average annual yield over time.

In terms of home food storage, planning for climate change simply means adding more cushion to your supplies under the assumption that you could lose a year or two of crops. Plant for the future. Knowing what grows well in your area is not enough anymore, because that knowledge is becoming increasingly dated. Plant hardiness zones have recently been updated again in the U.S. to reflect more current climate conditions. They will keep changing, decade after decade. I am told that now you can grow olives and lemons on Vancouver Island, if you choose your location carefully. So keep experimenting with new crops and cultivars from warming climes in sheltered areas, and then you can expand their use if conditions allow. You can adjust some of your cooler weather crops similarly to less-exposed areas, or in the northern hemisphere on northerly aspects.

Expect new challenges from pests and pathogens. Being able to grow new things like lemons and olives is great, but you should remember that if something new can grow in your soil, then so can every pest and pathogen that currently feeds on it wherever it is now growing, and build accordingly. If you have the opportunity to build a new home, be keenly aware of drainage issues; insulate and plan for energy and thermal efficiency; have a Plan B for air conditioning. Planning ahead can be as simple as just making sure that you have screens for your windows or mosquito nets for your beds. You know, if central air conditioning is not a possibility, you are going to have to do something else.

The risk of heat stress is growing in many places and is a major health problem. But health threats are more likely to arise from insect-borne diseases. So, we have things like dengue that is now in France, malaria in Greece. West Nile is going across the United States; Lyme disease is now up into Newfoundland and Canada. Globally, dengue is the most serious threat that is spreading rapidly in countries throughout the world. Malaria is also spreading. If we do not have active management, malaria could return across Europe, much of the United States, as well as eastern Canada and northern Australia. It is not so much that climate change is opening the new niches; we have cleared out that niche, and if for some reason we cannot maintain our ways of trying to keep those diseases from returning, they could spread rapidly over large areas.

You know, this goes on and becomes like a litany of doom. So, one last thing I would say is, just breathe. [Laughs]

Contemplating the implications of climate change can strike you much like the Crash Course did for me – you know, that sense of doom, oh, my gosh, what do we do? Yes, many things will change, and we will have to adapt how we live. However, just because the challenges I have listed will continue to grow, they do not constitute a sudden catastrophe for the planet or human societies or you. More and more of the planet will be visited by increasing levels of environmental problems of the years past. It is not suddenly going to arrive one day in the future. It is already here, and it is just going to be central to the rest of our lives and the lives of every generation from now until our great-great grandchildren.

Climate change will not destroy civilization like some dinosaur-killing asteroid. It will function more like death by a thousand cuts, with increasing amounts of resources and capital diverted to climate adaptation and reconstruction activities. Things like bridges will wash out much more frequently, and we will have to rebuild them. Wise people would be actively trying to stop the bleeding.

Unfortunately, humanity does not seem capable of such wisdom, because, as in the recent re-broadcast by Dan Ariely, he points out that climate change is just too uncertain, too slow, too non-specific, and too intractable to register as a threat requiring immediate and costly action for most people. People are apparently as hard-wired to make irrational decisions about the future climate as they are about money.

As an individual or a community, you cannot stop or even slow climate change, but that does not mean that you are helpless. You can plan ahead, you can adapt, and you can stock up on Band-Aids for all the economic cuts and abrasions that are coming.

Chris Martenson: In Chapter 19 of the Crash Course, I noted that there were going to be multiple calls on our future cash flows and climate change, and uncertainly around that. This is certainly going to be one. I mean, all it takes is one major crop failure, and, you know, it is a very expensive proposition. Sandy was a very obvious, expensive proposition, but, really, it is the larger changes that are going to be super, super expensive. A large drought has an incalculable expense to it, and it is very high.

I have started doing a lot of the things you said in my own personal life. When I had a chance to put up a new building, I over-insulated it under the principle that heating and cooling it was going to be easier in any circumstance. When I am planting cultivars now around my house, I am really looking for ones that are very robust, that can deal with a 70-degree March and no rain in April, as well as they can deal with a late start until June.

It is just very hard to predict how things are going to react to these different swings. It has been a learning experience for me, and I am glad it has just been a learning experience. When I talk to local farmers, it has been extremely expensive and difficult and time-consuming.I It just feels like a constant battle, where the terms of the battle are becoming – the engagements are rising, rather than diminishing. It is not even as simple as saying, Well, now we have worked out hardy cultivars; let’s go. It just seems to constantly shift. We are just going to have to deal with that, which just means more and more resources towards managing our increasing chaotic world around us, rather than just coasting through it.

So, a lot of challenges coming up, and I know that we see a lot of young people very concerned about this, and people trying to figure out what they can do. And, one thing I could direct people to is, if you want to learn more about this very deep subject and you want to have a really nice reasoned conversation around it, you could start with the Definitive Global Climate Change thread, which is in our forum areas at Peak Prosperity. It is fourteen hundred comments long. Mark, is there any place you could direct to that in there, or is there an existing summary that has been gathered at this point?

Mark Cochrane: No, we do not anything that kind of summarizes the whole thing. At one point, we were trying to have someone help create an index. Starting out just at the beginning of the thread, some of the early posts more or less lay out the general issues. But what I would look for in there is just questions from people. It does not have to be highly technical, scientific questions. It is just, you know, what is happening and what is occurring. And if we have already covered it, we can try to direct people to those posts, and if we have not, I am happy to discuss it. And there are several other people that have been very good about posting very informative points of view on many aspects of climate change. So it is as much a support group as an information source.

Chris Martenson: I very much ascribe to it and was influenced by Dan Ariely’s views, which you mentioned, on how it is that people will, through a process of insight, confront certain changes of behavior and other things like that. And, unfortunately, as you mentioned, climate change itself is poorly suited to interact well with our human wiring. Our DNA blueprint seems wired for other sorts of threats more elegantly. And so, I have come to the conclusion, personally, that climate change is already afoot and it is happening. I cannot possibly predict how, what, where, when, you know, things are going to unfold, because the regional, local mileage is going to vary hugely in this story for all sorts of reasons that are as yet unpredictable.

It becomes a story, then, of figuring out how to manage within that. But certainly, some trends that can be extrapolated that are useful is to say, Well, it’s reasonably certain this is just going to cost us more money over time. It will be one of many things that is going to demanding our resources, our attention, our best and our brightest. So that is certainly a trend that I fully ascribe to at this point in time. Is that a trend, is that the way you see it, or is there another way that people can adapt to this at this point?

Mark Cochrane: No, I think that is basically it. It is sort of like when we look at Peak Oil. Here is a huge problem that we have basically failed to engage with as a culture. But it is still showing up, and we see it as increasing energy prices; those change the way we behave and what we can do. Well, with these sorts of environmental costs, we will do the same thing. We will just have less resources to do other things. So we will continually be adjusting and adapting as things go on.

To be aware of what is happening locally is your best bet. If you are going to stay in a region, try to learn what things are most likely going to be occurring in your area, so that you can try to set up a more resilient and robust living arrangement for those sorts of changes. But, yeah, it is going to be a work in progress. We are learning more and more, but we are going to be on this ride for a long time. You do not have to do everything today or change your life instantly. Ideally, we would have started this decades ago, as we should have with many of our current problems.

But we will adjust and adapt. And just because I or anyone else cannot see how we can possibly do something right now does not mean that we cannot possibly do something. Once we actually engage with a problem, there will be lot of more creative thought in how do we adjust society and all of our infrastructure to deal with the changes that are coming.

Chris Martenson: Absolutely, and as you mentioned, it will take decades to work through that, as well. These are gigantic infrastructure modifications that are going to have to take place; changes in behaviors that span decades, if not centuries, if not millennia in some cases. This is going to be a big project, it is going to be engaging for a long time, and, as you mentioned earlier, whether we choose to engage in it or not, it is with us and it will be with us for a long time, even if we somehow manage to stop all of our practices today. It will still take quite a while for this to stabilize and settle out.

So, there you have it. I invite people again, if you want to discuss more about this, to go to the Definitive Global Climate Change thread. Mark, it has been a real pleasure talking with you today.

Mark Cochrane: Thank you for having me on.

About the Guest
Mark Cochrane

Dr. Mark Cochrane conducts interdisciplinary work combining ecology , remote sensing, and other fields of study to provide a landscape perspective of the dynamic processes involved in land-cover change. He is an expert on wildfire, documenting the characteristics, behavior and severe effects of fire in tropical and temperate forests that are inherent to current systems of human land-use and management. His research focuses on understanding spatial patterns, interactions and synergisms between the multiple physical and biological factors that affect ecosystems. Recently published work has emphasized the climate change, human dimensions of land-cover change and the potential for sustainable development. In his ongoing research program, Dr. Cochrane continues to investigate the drivers and effects of disturbance regime changes resulting from various forms of forest degradation, including fire, fragmentation and logging as well as the mitigating effects of forest management. He is currently the principle investigator of over $3.7 million in externally funded research grants designed to quantify fire mitigation effectiveness of billions of dollars of fuel treatment activities across the United States (JFSP), examine climate change and land management effects over the last century on vegetation structure and shifting fire regimes for the United States, Australia and Brazil (NASA), and determine the combined effects of land use change, conservation efforts and forest degradation on biodiversity throughout the Brazilian Amazon (NASA).  He holds a Ph.D. in Ecology from Pennsylvania State University and a S.B. in Environmental Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Related content
» More

103 Comments

  • Sat, Jul 20, 2013 - 8:03pm

    #1

    HughK

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 06 2012

    Posts: 571

    Thanks a lot, Chris and Mark!

    Dear Mark and Chris,

    Thanks very much for this interview.  As we develop our understanding of the major destabilizing shifts in our industrial civilization, summarized by Chris as the three E's, it is both helpful and important that we deeply consider the largest of these shifts – Environment, the source of our primary and secondary wealth.  

    The depiction of the third E in the Crash Course is somewhat incomplete, as it focuses on mineral depletion and degradation of soil and fresh water and expressly sets global warming to the side in the second  paragraph of Chapter 18.  While mineral depletion and soil degradation are certainly important aspects of industrial humanity's impact on the environment, in geologic history the environmental trump card has often been climate and there is strong indication that this is true again today.  The systemic nature of a geologically rapid climate shift, along with a rapid acidification of our oceans, has so many important effects that a well-developed conception of the third E should at least include and most probably feature anthropogenic global warming.

    So, while many geologists now refer to our current geologic age as the Anthropocene – the age of humans – for a number of reasons, including habitat destruction, air and water pollution, massive earth-moving projects, and others, the most important way in which humans are rapidly degrading the biosphere’s productivity is by forcing one of the fastest and most abrupt climatic warmings in geologic history.

    Such an inclusion of anthropogenic global warming in the third E will make PeakProsperity's conception of the Environment more on par with the excellent analysis that Chris has done for the first 2 E's.  After all, who can understand contemporary shifts in the economy without at least a basic explanation of fractional reserve banking (i.e. growth and debt-based capitalism) and LSAPs (i.e Quantitative Easing)?  Who can understand major shifts in the Energy that powers our industrial civilization without a basic explanation of peak oil and declining EROI?  

    In fairness to you, Dr. Martenson, you have always tried to keep the message of the Crash Course as non-divising and as pallatable as possible, and so it is certainly understandable that you might choose to set aside climate change in the earlier conceptions of the third E.  I write this post with the intent to encourage an ever improving conception of the three E's.

    Quantitative easing has a systemic and pervasive effect on our financial and monetary systems and very likely will have unintended consequences, as Peak Prosperity has astutely demonstrated.  Passing the peak of global conventional crude oil production has a pervasive and systemic effect on our industrial and economic systems, yet in spite of the fact that we passed this peak almost 10 years ago (`05/`06), the conventional wisdom still holds that it’s not happening and that we are on the cusp of a new era of cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy in the form of nonconventional oil and gas.  In other words, even though passing the oil peak has already happened, and we can demonstrate that, the majority view in our civilization has not acknowledged this, which puts us at a disadvantage in terms of planning and adaptation of our energy systems.  While I had first read about peak oil and EROI before discovering Chris' Crash Course, that book was instrumental in my understanding of shifts in the Economy and Energy as well as helping me question my own paradigms and the dominant paradigms of our civilization.

    In a similar vein, it is necessary to include anthropogenic global warming in a well-developed explanation of the major Environmental shifts triggered by the our global industrial civilization.  Not including AGW in the third E would be like trying to explain Economy without talking about the probable consequences of QE or trying to explain Energy without addressing the reality of passing Hubbert’s conventional global oil peak. 

    So, it is ultimately both useful and necessary that we confront the causes, consequences and possible responses to climate change driven primarily by the anthropogenic forcings of our industrial civilization.  That is why this interview is such a constructive step towards bringing PeakProsperity’s conception of the third E – Environment – towards the very rigorous, comprehensive, and useful analysis that Chris and others here have developed to explain the Economy and Energy.

    Thanks again, Chris and Mark!

    -Hugh

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 20, 2013 - 10:05pm

    #2

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 465

    This topic never gets addressed without raising questions

     

    Thanks for a lucid presentation of the topic.

     

    This is one of my stumbling blocks.  Is the chart below telling me that the average Earth temperature over a longer time frame is 22 degrees celsius (72 degrees fahrenheit) and that a more normal atmostpheric CO2 level over the same time frame would be closer to 1000 ppm?  

     

    NASA pegged the 2012 average Earth temperature at 14.6C (58.3F).  If this chart has any validity at all, we would seem to be in an abnormally low period for both temperature and CO2.  If we manage to stop anthropogenic climate change, what's to keep the Earth from warming up independent of our influence?

     

    Inquiring minds and all that.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 20, 2013 - 10:06pm

    #3

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    The rest of the summary:

    Despite Mark saying that a summary of major developments on his thread, The Definitive Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming) Thread, is not available, it seems that he actually presented a fairly good summary of the points that he and others have made there concerning climate change. Chris did an excellent job of asking good questions, however, I wish that he had explored two others a bit further. The first is how do we know what the future is likely to bring. The second is, what effective mitigation actions can be taken. These have been discussed from many viewpoints on Mark's thread.

    Mark mentioned that global average temperatures may rise by 4 C – 6 C and sea levels may rise by 2 meters by 2100. To obtain even 4 C by 2100, temperatures would have to rise at more 0.45 C per decade on average for the rest of the century. This is much larger than the rate of warming that has been observed in even the most recent decades. Why should we expect this to occur?

    In view of the remarks about energy flows and balances, one might assume that the 4 C – 6 C expectations are based on mundane physics, but, as a physicist, I can say unequivocally that they are not. Those expectations are based on computer models of earth that have not been validated and are in increasing disagreement with actual observations. This has also been discussed in recent posts on Mark's thread.

    Despite the prediction of a 2 meter rise of sea level by 2100, it should be noted that even the highest rates of mean sea level rise of recent decades do not extrapolate to more than about one foot of sea level rise by that time. Bearing in mind that about 85% of sea level rise is caused by ocean thermal expansion, even a 6 C increase of ocean surface temperature (and correspondingly less at greater depths) is inadequate to produce 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100.

    I think it appropriate to say that the extreme numbers that were casually mentioned as expectations should be taken with a grain of salt. The models that produced them are of questionable validity, especially in view of the fact that the rate of global temperature increase has slowed to insignificance in this century. That brings up one last point; that there is no particular reason to expect a long term increase of climate variability without increase of temperature.

    The second point needing elaboration is the issue of mitigation. The dominant human contribution to climate change would be that of increasing the atmospheric concentration carbon dioxide. The obvious mitigation measure should consist of reducing it, but it is a world-wide problem. It is not something that can be unilaterally stopped by the actions of any one nation. Carbon dioxide emissions of the U.S. have been reduced back to about 1992 levels in the last few years, primarily by switching the fuel for electric power generation from coal to natural gas. In the meantime, emissions from China, India and other nations has continued to increase at a rapid rate. If humans are to do anything more than merely adapt to the consequences of more carbon dioxide then we must address the problem on a worldwide basis.

    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 20, 2013 - 11:25pm

    Reply to #1

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Perspective

    Hugh,As with all things related to the 3 E's, there needs to be balance in our responses and preparations. For me, the key to the Crash Course was the way that Chris was able to lucidly present so much material from the disparate realms of finance, energy, and environment in a systems context. He connects the dots and suddenly so many disparate pieces that were concerning me for some reason all fit together and made sense as a whole. Understanding how the pieces fit together is key to seeing the larger picture.
    With regard to the Anthropocene, while it is true that our activities have become geologically important, with globally noticeable changes, it is a mark of our continued hubris to think that we warrant our own geologic epoch. If do not learn how to live within limits soon, our activities will look more like the K-T boundary than a geologic epoch to some future geological study 100 million years from now.
    Mark
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 12:07am

    Reply to #2
    JMill

    JMill

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2010

    Posts: 1

    Great chart

    Les,That is a fantastic chart, in keeping with this site's macro theme.  Sometimes I feel like all of us are standing too close to a Seurat. This backs us up nicely. Thank you
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 12:08am

    #4
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1358

    Stan

    Your questions relating to projections of the effects of climate change are based on largely historical data without taking into consideration the accelerating effects we are actually witnessing, not least of which is the increasing rate of CO2 injections into the atmosphere.  I have seen projections elsewhere that have wide error bars that put Mark's projections about in the middle, maybe a little toward the high end.  Particularly salient here is that we just don't know how bad its going to get because we have never been here before.  Therefore, to me, the precautionary principle should prevail.  We need to stop doing what we're doing.  There is already considerable change baked into the planetary cake, why make it worse?  To that point, this paragraph is very relevant:

    [quote]The second point needing elaboration is the issue of mitigation. The dominant human contribution to climate change would be that of increasing the atmospheric concentration carbon dioxide. The obvious mitigation measure should consist of reducing it, but it is a world-wide problem. It is not something that can be unilaterally stopped by the actions of any one nation. Carbon dioxide emissions of the U.S. have been reduced back to about 1992 levels in the last few years, primarily by switching the fuel for electric power generation from coal to natural gas. In the meantime, emissions from China, India and other nations has continued to increase at a rapid rate. If humans are to do anything more than merely adapt to the consequences of more carbon dioxide then we must address the problem on a worldwide basis.[/quote]

    Unmentioned in the interview is that individual efforts to make our lives more resilient won't have much effect if we don't also take political actions individually and cumulatively.  True, one country can't fix it alone, but the US has been the global leader in many areas for more than half a century.  What other country is more suited to take a position of leadership?  Pres. Obama has made a small and halting step in that direction, but without all of us pounding on our reps in Congress, his individual leadership won't go far.  My Congressman, whose name will not be mentioned, but rhymes with (cough…Tom Reed of NY's 23rd Congressional District…cough), has been one of those whose environmental record (as he or one of his lackeys) wrote to me, consists of:

    [quote]When discussing the issue of climate change, it is important that the facts prevail. Using the data provided by the scientific community will provide our nation with the proper information and solutions as to how best to maintain a viable environment for economic growth.[/quote]

    This is the type of attitude that prevents anything of value being done.  Environment=economic growth.  OBTW, he is heavily hooked into the fossil fuel industry.  That won't change without massive public participation.  Just as with the huge problem of no banksters cooling their heels in prison for nearly destroying the world economy, little or nothing will be done without the public putting heat on Congress.

    Chris and Mark, great interview.  I'm very heartened.

    Doug

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 12:42am

    Reply to #2

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Timing is everything

    Hello Les,You raise the important question of where we fit in the grand scheme of things on Earth. In the figure you present, you can see that through most of the last 600 million years there have been two roughly stable states, a hot world (22 C) and a cold world (12 C) with some fairly short transitional periods between them. Note, ice ages and interglacials (like now) actually make 'cold world' temperatures a squiggle up and down by about 5 C but on time scales too short to register on your figure which smoothes out changes in such short time scales – think 10 to 100 thousand years.
    The hot world has been more common but every bit of human existence has been spent in 'cold world'. In fact all of primate history has been spent at or near cold world conditions. What gets lost in a graphic like the one you provide is the perspective of time. Can anyone really conceive of millions, or hundreds of millions of years in human terms? All of mankind's agricultural history has taken place in the last 10,000 years. Fossil fuel-driven society makes up only 150 years.
    Transitions from hot world to cold world and vice versa have largely been linked with the long-term carbon cycle that is driven mostly by plate tectonics. In geologically active periods, where seas are spreading, volcanic activity beyond what we currently experience can release large amounts of carbon dioxide (slowly in human terms = millions of years), making hot world more likely. Conversely, continental collisions like India slamming into Asia cause massive uplifting (Himalayas) and chemical weathering of minerals that act to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, making cold world more likely. This is a simplification of the process as the placement of the continents and oceans also play a role in changing the transfer of energy from ocean currents and the amount and type of vegetation (but see the figure for some perspective on vegetation on the time scales of your graphic).

    The important thing for life (including us) isn't whether we are in cold or hot world, it is the rate at which things change. Slow change = adaptation and evolution. Fast change = collapse and extinction (for many species). Slowing from 100 km/h (60 mi/h) to a stop in 3-4 seconds (braking) is a very different experience from making that change in 3-4 milliseconds (crash). Through mitigation (e.g. reducing emissions rates) and adaptation (e.g. changing buildings, location, activities) we are doing the equivalent of trying to add and airbag into the equation. The airbag doesn't prevent the crash but it stretches out the time to adjust your speed from none to tenths of seconds. Not fun but survivable. Since we are currently driving at high speed in dense fog, at least taking our foot off of the fossil fuel accelerator would be wise (IMHO).
    There are no guarantees that the planet will not snap into hot world regardless of what we do but those changes generally take millions of years to occur (rates of change we can deal with). We are currently causing what would look like an instantaneous temperature change on your figure. We have no geologic analogue for such a change so no one really knows what will happen. We do know that every life form on the planet will increasingly find itself living in the wrong climate. This is a recipe for nasty surprises.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 1:52am

    Reply to #4

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    More physics

    [quote=Doug]Your questions relating to projections of the effects of climate change are based on largely historical data without taking into consideration the accelerating effects we are actually witnessing, not least of which is the increasing rate of CO2 injections into the atmosphere.  I have seen projections elsewhere that have wide error bars that put Mark's projections about in the middle, maybe a little toward the high end.  Particularly salient here is that we just don't know how bad its going to get because we have never been here before.  Therefore, to me, the precautionary principle should prevail.  We need to stop doing what we're doing.  There is already considerable change baked into the planetary cake, why make it worse?  . . [/quote].
    Doug,
    You are overlooking the physics of CO2. Its contribution to temperatures near the earth surface varies in proportion to the logarithm of its concentration in the atmosphere. The exponential increase of CO2 will cause temperatures to increase linearly with time. That rate of increase has been about 5% per decade for half a century and the linear trend of increasing temperatures for that period projects to about 1 C by 2100. That is astounding enough without hyping larger numbers that make no sense, no matter where you might have seen them. There is no physical reason to presently expect an accelerating rate of temperature increase. In fact, the opposite is occurrring. Further, as I have previously pointed out on Mark's thread, there is not a large temperature increase baked in because of thermal lag. About one decade is all that would be needed for surface temperatures to equilibrate if CO2 concentrations ceased to increase.
    The other ill effects of more CO2 will continue to increase and probably will accelerate, and I agree that the precautionary principle should apply. But it would be prudent to be sure that the cost of insurance would not exceed the cost of the losses.
    Stan
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 2:42am

    #5

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    What to Do.

    I am amongst the upper quintile.

    Every sentence caused a cascade of thoughts , far too many to keep track of them all.

    But enough of being nice. Lets get the gloves off. I accuse Mark of denialism.

    I have posted this picture of Strange Attractors up often in the context of our position in the Goldilocks zone, and nary a peep from Mark. He must know the significance of Chaos theory and its implications. Chaos theory was developed by climatologists. (Edward Lorenz).

     

    So what to do about it? If life becomes non-viable on this planet and it is unable to support the oceans and atmosphere then we have to leave. How many will die? 100%. But we have to get Gaia back into the Goldilocks zone.

    Compulsory reading : Anything by Professor James Lovelock and Dr Gerard K O’Neil.

    Edit: I am assuming that you have all read your Gleick?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 4:34am

    #6

    SailAway

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 11 2010

    Posts: 234

    Great podcast

    Thanks Mark/Chris/Adam for this podcast, greatly appreciated.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 5:52am

    #7

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Backtrack.

    I am amongst the upper quintile.

    Oops. Let me re-phrase that.

    I really enjoyed that talk. It was really intelligent

    I am not intelligent. On the contrary, I am as thick as a plank. (That is plank, not M.Planck.) Why is english so hard?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 6:06am

    Reply to #3

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Rising tides

    Hello Stan,Just as with many estimates, you cannot make linear extrapolations of exponentially increasing changes and project them very far into the future with any accuracy. This has been discussed many times on this site and in the Crash Course when, for example, someone states that coal reserves are going to last for hundreds of years.

    Experts estimate that the United States has about 265 billion tons of coal reserves. If we continue to use coal at the same rate as we do today, we will have enough coal to last 285 years. (source)

    The problem is that will not keep using these or any resources at the same rate as today. Our population is increasing exponentially and so is our rate of increase in the use of resources, only more so because everyone is trying to live like we do in the United States.
    Similarly, the oceans are rising, but they are rising at an increasing rate over time. Currently it is about 3 mm/yr but it used to be much slower. (Note GMSL means Global Mean Sea Level – from Church et al. 2008)

    Global sea levels are changing for three main reasons.
    1. Melting glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica and alpine areas all over the world that pour water currently perched as ice on land into the seas ( just over 50% of sea level increase)
    2. Changing heat content of the oceans that results in thermal expansion of the water (just under 50% of the increase)
    3. Changed water storage on land (pumping aquifers increases sea levels while dammed reservoirs decrease sea level – the net is a slight decrease)
    From 1972-2008, sea level increased by 7 cm. If you assume that increase was linear then you would calculate an average rate of increase of 1.9 mm/yr. However, during the period from 1993-2008, sea levels have been increasing an average of 3 mm/yr. The figure below shows where the water is coming from (from Church et al 2011)

    In terms of climate change the whole issue comes down to the energy balance of the planet. As long as we are gaining more energy from the sun than we are losing through radiated heat to space then the planet will warm, the ice will melt, and the seas will rise.
    The last serious attempt to question the existence of global warming came from a team lead by physicist Dr. Richard Muller at Berkeley. His efforts were funded and assisted by the likes of the Koch brothers and Anthony Watts. They provided whole new analyses of everything and tested all of the 'skeptic' arguments for why global warming either wasn't real or at least wasn't caused by us. This is what Dr. Muller stated last year in a NYTimes Op-Ed that summed up the finding from 5 research papers.

    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
    My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
    .
    .
    How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. (source)

    Their analyses were all based on data from observations, not on any global climate models.
    I agree that no one country can singlehandedly deal with this issue but waiting for everyone to agree on something is a losing proposition. China got tired of waiting for the US and they are at least attempting to do something.

    China pilots programs to meet carbon targets
    This year, alongside the cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing as well as the regions of Guangdong and Hubei, Shenzhen is imposing greenhouse gas targets on hundreds of companies, ranging from power plants to airport operators. The goal is to develop a national carbon market over the next decade that could help put the brakes on the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter.
    “China has internationally pledged 2020 climate targets,” observes Chai Hongliang, an analyst at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, an Oslo-based information-provider specializing in carbon markets. He is referring to a commitment first made by China ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks to reduce its economy’s overall carbon emissions per unit of GDP to 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. “It has two ways to reach the target: shut down factories in the last months of 2020 or use more market-based approaches like emissions trading,” Chai adds. (source)

    We've run out of excuses for not addressing climate change.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 6:23am

    Reply to #5

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    The Butterfly effect

    Hello Arthur,Yes I have read Gleick's book on Chaos Theory and I actually had the good fortune to attend a lecture on the discovery of the so-called Butterfly Effect by Professor Ed Lorenz himself while I was at MIT.
    Weather is chaotic but although there are chaotic elements of the climate system (e.g. El Niño), on the whole the chaos comes out in the wash, so to speak.
    There is a good piece on this over at Skeptical Science (link)

    Weather is chaotic because air is light, it has low friction and viscosity, it expands strongly when in contact with hot surfaces and it conducts heat poorly. Therefore weather is never in equilibrium and the wind always blows. The climate is mostly explained by equilibrium radiation physics, which puts the brakes on variations in global temperatures. Effects from weather, the Sun, volcanoes etc. currently only causes a small amount of chaotic behavior compared to the deterministic, predictable greenhouse gas forcing for the next 100 years"

    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 9:05am

    #8

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The Mushroom Opening.

    At the risk of embarassing myself further, that does not address the problem of the Strange Attractor concept Mark.

    The conditions that exist on our planet orbit (Mathematicaly) around what we consider to be normal. But as the climate swings further and further out from from it's locus it can bifarcate chaoticaly into a new normal. (The over-used tipping point metaphore).

    These loci are called Strange Attractors. The climate on an asteroid orbits (mathematicaly) a strange attractor. In other words it's climate changes but only within a small range. The climate and chemistry of Venus also orbits a SA., And Mars and so on and so forth.

    The conditions on Earth will be captured by a different Strange Attractor if its (Mathematical) orbit strays too far as is illustrated by the Lorenz diagram.

    The conditions on earth are very unstable, and are held at a condition favourable to life by life with powerful feedback loops. The other dead planets are much more stable and they are not likely to migrate to a different Strange attractor.

    As our sun heats up by converting hydrogen into helium the Goldilocks zone migrates outward. Rumour has it that we are flirting with the inner (Hot) edge. The mechanism that life has used to control the temperature has been to sequester CO2 as the temperature increases. We are now down to the last 280 ppm. This trick is failing, leading to the (Geologicaly) recent wild flutuations in temperature. The glacials and interglacials.

    And then the Ape comes on the scene and releases the stored carbon.

    My contention is that the Ape is the last hope for Gaia. We are a subsystem of the whole organism and our sole purpose is to move Gaia back into the Goldilocks zone. Obviously we cannot take the rock with us.

    This concentration of wealth that I see is analogous to the fruiting body of a fungus when the moment is ripe for it to spore. This effort is going to consume the Mother. That phenomenon has its parrallels in nature too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 11:36am

    #9

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    The Earth is Heating Up More Quickly

    Stan is correct that warming has slowed in the last 15 years but that is only part of the story, and related only to surface temperature. Due to an increased uptake of heat in the oceans, the earth, as a whole, has actually warmed more quickly over the last 15 years than previously. See also Foster and Rahmstorf who have tried to adjust data for temporary factors and show that underlying surface warming hasn't slowed.

    Stan is also correct that this is a global problem that needs a global strategy. It is pointless targetting individual country emissions when we live in a global economy. The US may crow about the decrease in emissions there but they don't include all emissions related to economic activity, or daily life, in that country, given the high emissions in countries that produce a lot of their goods and services.

    I don't expect China to lead the way. The best they could come up with is to try to reduce their carbon intensity. That is, they still intend to increase emissions because they intend to keep growing their economy but they will try hard to reduce the carbon emitted per unit of GDP. Not good enough, given the problems we face with CO2, CH4, other greenhouse gases and with feedback loops, many of which have been kicked off recently.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 11:49am

    #10

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 465

    Has humanity profited from cheap energy?

    First, I read a book on the subject a few years back that included a decision tree I still remember:

    1. Is the globe warming? No -> Do nothing.

    2. Is the warming anthropogenic? No -> Nothing to be done.

    3. Is the warming good or bad? Good -> Do nothing.

    4. Can we impact the warming? No -> Do nothing.

    5. Is reducing or stopping the warming worth the cost of the required changes? No -> Do nothing.

    Yes -> Change immediately.

    The book "Climate of Extremes" was written by AGW believers, but outlines the shenanigans and inaccuracies that have surrounded this hot topic.  That, however, is not why I mention the book.  In the last chapter, the authors talk about the benefits that humanity has received by taking advantage of cheap energy.  They talk about our life span almost doubling and world population increasing to a level entirely unlikely without cheap energy.  Also mentioned are the medical and technological advances that have made our lives what they are today.  The authors talk about the billions of human lifetimes that we have gained.  They then touch on the potential cost in lives that would occur were we to try to implement any meaningful plan to combat CO2 on a global scale.

    This is not a topic that I see come up frequently in the AGW debate.  I found the entire book entertaining, but the last chapter was thought provoking.  Do we turn off airconditioners in the summer in the retirement communities of Arizona.  If so, how many lives will be lost.

    I have to come out and say that, yes, 7 billion people are changing the face of our tiny planet.  I do not believe Earth's carrying capacity is nearly that large.  I could mention dozens of examples of humans changing the planet without having to resort to controversial computer models.  Do a google search on "Pacific Garbage Patch" and look at the images.  I'll leave it at one example, although I could add dozens.

    I don't think AGW or any of the damaging things that are certainly happening to this planet can or will be addressed until our population is back down to a more reasonable level.  Certainly, we don't have the global political climate necessary to try to implement changes while maintaining our current population.

    Debating whether AGW is happening or not is entertaining and distracting, but what can it practically accomplish?  I believe some of the other issues that this website addresses are going to impact humanity far sooner than AGW can become critical.  It appears the first giant shoe will be the debt bubble, followed by much more expensive energy and therefore food and everything else.  Clearly, environmental issues will come into play and already are.

    However, the changes necessary to reduce AGW are going to be forced on us by circumstances, rather than implemented by intelligent politics.  Now there is an oxymoron as entertaining as military intelligence!

    Les

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 12:11pm

    #11
    yogiismyhero

    yogiismyhero

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 28 2013

    Posts: 174

    This Podcast was a long time coming...

    …and every word spoken a delight. This message is ongoing and Dr.Cochrane represented extremely well. Count me as a huge fan. I love shell food and by the looks of the demand for the stuff I would imagine some serious changes of behavior will have to be contemplated. Oh my, will we ever have changes. Mankind's glutonous ways and nature finally pushing back. I love how Mother Nature solves these simple math problems.

    Man is gauranteed nothing and owes much. "May your conscious be your guide" were words spoken to me my whole life and I know they served me well. I am not perfect but I strive to be. It's in the striving that we succeed, ever so slowly.

    Mark, love you Brother, just simply do. Thank you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 12:45pm

    #12
    yogiismyhero

    yogiismyhero

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 28 2013

    Posts: 174

    Hell, I risk nothing as I always embarrass myself...

     

     

    I will quote from Mark later. Arthur, I do believe I understood you, every word! Yeah surprised the heck out of me also, on the first read too!!. Mark too and I just have to keep things simple so without further delay a quote from Mark that takes all of these truly great threads down to its simplist form for me. I ask one question after your read: What can I do so my conscious is clear that I did my utmost because when I meet the BIG GUY I have got to say I did my level best. If there is a BIG GUY. I hedge all bets so am a believer in the BIG GUY. Mark's quote:

    "There are no guarantees that the planet will not snap into hot world regardless of what we do but those changes generally take millions of years to occur (rates of change we can deal with). We are currently causing what would look like an instantaneous temperature change on your figure. We have no geologic analogue for such a change so no one really knows what will happen. We do know that every life form on the planet will increasingly find itself living in the wrong climate. This is a recipe for nasty surprises."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 1:27pm

    Reply to #2
    MyBackAchers

    MyBackAchers

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 28 2013

    Posts: 26

    Aquifers in decline

    I live in the area of Southern Minnesota/Northen Iowa that got severe drought in 2012 and excess rains/snow in spring 2013. What I noticed was so devastating as crops died in the heat in 2012 then in spring 2013 – less than half the fields didn't get planted. ONLY a HANDFUL of farmers DIDN'T see the stress caused by the extreme weather and I wrote about the differences between them and HOW some fields survived and others didn't.What I see is that the commercial farm system is creating its own demise via not following standard crop rotation and crop covers. I wrote about it on:
    http://MyBackAchers.com/PlowPan.pdf
    I attributed the declining aquifer, the extreme crop loss and increasing flooding to farmers development of plow and hard pan because they lack crop rotation and the loss of deep rooted trees.
    If the big commercial farmer doesn't change their practices, this condition will be seem more wide-spread than we are seeing now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 1:39pm

    #13

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    Future Climate

    Mark,

    I'm really glad to see this presentation, as it is to me, a collision of two of my favorite thinkers.
    As you know, I work on the "chaos" side, trained as a meteorologist, so my thoughts on large scale climate tend to start at the micro-scale and expand to the macro. When assessing for any for of climate variation that takes humans (even on the fringe) out of the 'Goldilocks" zone, my mind turns quickly towards the following questions:
    1. What organisms will thrive under such conditions?
    1.a. Flora?
    1.b. Fauna?

    2. What impacts will the expansions of Flora and Fauna from point 1 bring to eco-ststems/eco-regions?

    3. How will the increased population of certain types of fauna impact net atmospheric CO_2?
    3.b. How will it affect albedo? Climate classifications, etc?

    While I'm not as advanced in my studies, some of the general principles that I consider are:
    – Increased temperature is going to cause a net increase of positive atmospheric vorticity. For the non-science people, convection, and surface based confluence which means the air is traveling upwards.
    – Increased temperature is going to allow for higher water vapor content at all elevations, and thus, provides the opportunity for increased cloud cover and cloud formation.
    – This in turn, creates a layer of strong albedo at the level of condensations (cloud formation)
    – This would keep the surface warmer, cool the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere (700-200MB) and trap a lot more humidity at the surface. It may also flatten the thermal gradient over large, semi-uniform regions, such as the great plains.

    These thoughts are my cursory 'projections' on how an higher aggregate temperature might begin influencing patterns of weather in terms of things people can easily envision. I'd like to start tying things like oceanic CO_2 to algael blooms, and the net impact that those might have on ocean life, the types of flora that thrive in a CO_2 dense environment and how the biology and atmospheric sciences will tie together.

    If you have the time, would you mind talking on some of these points? And please, this isn't directed only at Dr. Cochrane, I'd like to hear theories from anyone with background in the sciences.

    I imagine that any climate change will be a continuation of the ongoing process of natural selection.
    Cheers, and thank to both Chris and Mark for this presentation!
    Aaron

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 1:57pm

    #14
    Richard Allen

    Richard Allen

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 16 2011

    Posts: 8

    the future of food

    Thanks Mark & Chris — great discussion!  

    As for the challenges of growing food in a climate-destabilizing world, I think a combination of perennials-based permaculture (e.g., Mark Shepard), wild-food gathering (e.g., Samuel Thayer), and resilient small-scale annuals (e.g., Carol Deppe) has the best chance.  …So let's do it!  🙂

    See my essay http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-03-11/when-agriculture-stops-working-a-guide-to-growing-food-in-the-age-of-climate-destabilization-and-civilization-collapse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 3:55pm

    #15

    JAG

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 240

    Chill Units for Texas Gulf Coast

    I have recently been researching what fruit trees I can plant this fall. Here, along the Texas Gulf Coast, one of the major limiting factors for selecting fruit trees is winter chill units (or lack thereof). In order to get an idea of what the winter chill units of my area I used a formula based on average temperature in the month of January. Using historical temperature records from a local Airforce base, here is what I found:

    2004-2013 = 588 chill units

    1994-2003 = 621 chill units

    1984-1993 = 721 chill units

    1974-1983 = 777 chill units

    1964-1973 = 732 chill units

    1954-1963 = 765 chill units

    In 1950, the far left column on the chart above, there were 0 chill units that winter. Unfortunately, I was unable to get any weather data prior to 1950.

    So the trend in this area seems to be a significant loss of average chill units over each ten-year period. Based on this data, I've decide that the majority of my fruit trees should be low chill varieties (200-400 chill units).

    My area is getting warmer, which is good for my citrus trees, but limits my ability to grow stonefruits, apples, etc.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 4:11pm

    #16
    Rob P

    Rob P

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 09 2008

    Posts: 36

    Thanks for doing this

    I agree totally with the first comment above – Hugh K.  I assume that CM has tried to avoid this "ontroversial" issue, but it really needs to come front and center at this site.  I just want to put in my two cents.  I can't give enough applause for this happening.  I think this site is really blessed to have Mark on board too.  

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 7:01pm

    #17

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 36

    Kudos to PP.com for This Interview

    This outstanding interview with Mark Cochrane in one fell swoop set right the single glaring shortcoming of PP.com. I hope there will be more of this sort of content in the future.
    And if it results in some leaving the site I suspect it will those whose grasp of the 3Es was pretty tenuous anyway.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 7:04pm

    Reply to #3

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    Let's be nonlinear here

    [quote=Mark Cochrane]Hello Stan,
    Just as with many estimates, you cannot make linear extrapolations of exponentially increasing changes and project them very far into the future with any accuracy. . . .

    [/quote]
    Hi Mark,
    OK, let's take your chart above. Fit the increase of sea level since 1870 to an exponential function and extrapolate it until 2100, and that yields a 1.6 ft increase from the present level. My point was that the extreme numbers that you casually throw out are simply not credible. Now is a 1.6 ft sea level rise a problem? Of course it is, but choosing the correct policy options to deal with it is not helped by unbelievable numbers.
    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 7:22pm

    #18

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 465

    The origin of Climate Change

    I miss this guy!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 7:51pm

    Reply to #8

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Bifurcation

    Arthur,Might we have pushed the climate into a different path of a strange attractor such as illustrated in your first post that could send the world more quickly back to 'hot' world? Yes. But consider this, we could also have retracked to take several more laps around the 'cold' track as well. Our knowledge of the system is too limited to be sure of either outcome but regardless, the more that we perturb the climate system the greater the chance for nonlinear surprises.
    Throughout 100's of millions of years the climate of the planet has been remarkably stable and, as per Lovelock, life certainly has played a large role in this process. I am not so concerned about 'life' continuing on whether we stay in or slip out of what we consider the current 'Goldilocks' zone. Life survived the Oxygen Catastrophe, Snowball Earth, the PETM, K-T dinosaur killing event etc. We've got multicellular life living miles deep  in rock, and extremophile bacteria in all sorts of hostile environments. Sterilizing the planet is going to take a lot more than we are dishing out.
    The question is how big of a reset button are we pushing. We could make a mess of things that lasts thousands or millions of years but as Lovelock showed with Daisyworld, life can modify albedo as well as atmospheric conditions. Life will go on, but will we be going with it?
    We tend to think that we are 'special'. Some culmination of life. However, in a Gaian context we are an experiment. I have speculated along the lines that you mention as to our potential role. Could we be the 'saviors' of life by making sure that we do not keep all of our eggs in this one planetary basket (as per Robert Heinlein) until chance or the sun gobble us up (as it converts to a Red Giant billions of years hence)? Yes, but then again we might just be a blip on the evolutionary timeline.
    This is great philosophical debate but for human society in the here and now the concerns are much more immediate. If we cannot even get things right on this planet then there is little hope that we would do better on a less hospitable one if we could get to it.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 8:34pm

    #19

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    Reminder: Adaptation and Relocation Thread

    I know a very vocal minority will be stepping out to express their disappointment wirh Dr. Martenson covering this subject with Dr. Cochrane.

    But just remember the difficulty in getting your friends and neighbors to accept the explanations and findings of the Crash Course, and the consequences and necessary actions they imply… and you can have a rough idea of how people dependent on the current economic course may resist the theory of climate change.

    So I want to remind everyone that we have a thread for already convinced, like-minded people to get started on talking about Adaptation and Relocation actions and thoughts and information-sharing.

    Climate Change: Adaptation / Relocation

    https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/climate-change-adaptation-relocation/73394

    Poet

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 8:41pm

    Reply to #2

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    A worthwhile read!

    Interesting read from MyBachAchers on that link.Farming as currently practiced by industrial agriculture is actually a mining operation. I knew of some of the issues but I did not understand the literal depth of the impacts. Yet another illustration of how emphasis on short term profits leads to long-term suffering.  Talk about diminishing returns on growing investments. How much of our petroleum energy inheritance will we end up having wasted to no good purpose?
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 9:46pm

    Reply to #13

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Need a time frame to have in mind

    Hello Aaron,Just lobbing out a few soft balls eh? I'll try to do justice to your questions but the answers all have to be placed in the context of when? Short term winners and losers will differ from longer term adjustments.
    All life is where it is as a function of being adapted to the given climate, soils/terrain and other life forms. When we talk about climate change we are talking about disturbance to existing ecosystems, much like a hurricane or a fire. The difference is that the disturbance is global but variable in intensity and form (e.g. drought, flooding, disease, landslides etc). Responses will depend on the scale, intensity and frequency of the 'disturbed' conditions.
    In ecology we group organisms by what are termed r- and K-selected species (summary here). K-selected species are those that are best adapted to conditions that are more stable. They invest more energy in reproduction of fewer but more successful offspring. They are more specialized to exploit a given niche. The r-selected species are pioneering/weedy species. They blast out millions of eggs/seeds and let chance lead to success. They are not as well adapted to specific conditions but they are poised to exploit any disturbance.
    With regard to your questions:
    1. What organisms will thrive under such conditions?
    Anything that has wide dispersal capability, many propagules/offspring, fast growth and short generational times. As long as the rate of climate change exceeds the dispersal capability and generational reproduction rates of larger/longer lived species the balance will be in favor of disturbance adapted species.
    1.a. Flora? – species we typically think of as weeds and invasives will have a field day as existing ecosystems become more stressed and frequently disturbed.

    1.b. Fauna? – Simpler forms that are generalists in their eating habits with short generations and many offspring. Boom and bust populations are likely (think rabbits in Australia; mountain pine beetles in western North America). Organisms like bacteria can adapt quickly because they have very short reproduction cycles that allow rapid micro-evolution under strong selection pressure. In multicellular life forms, insects, rodents and other species that can get multiple clutches/litters in per year will be favored.
    2. What impacts will the expansions of Flora and Fauna from point 1 bring to eco-ststems/eco-regions? The expansions of species from item #1 will in some cases be the harbingers of change (mountain pine beetles killing forests) and in others simply be the symptoms imbalances in the energy availability of ecosystems or predator/prey ratios.
    3. How will the increased population of certain types of fauna impact net atmospheric CO_2? This is all location and rate of change dependent but globally the net impact, initially at least, is likely be a positive feedback where more CO2 is released to the atmosphere. This comes in terms of less forests, faster decomposition rates from soil carbon, melted permafrost allowing decomposition of stored carbon etc.

    3.b. How will it affect albedo? Climate classifications, etc? This really getting out on the speculative ledge but forests are generally darker than grasses so less this means a negative forcing on land as more sunlight gets reflected. However loss of glaciers around the Earth changes surfaces from white to bare soil which increases thermal energy uptake. Loss of sea ice (especially in the Arctic) yields a large uptake in thermal energy. Sea level rise covers more land and also leads to more sunlight stored as heat. Net global is likely to result in increased warming in the short-to-midterm (decades to millennia). As climate begins to stabilize then this can change once life starts to catch up with the new conditions and ecosystems consolidate.
    In terms of your postulated changes to the hydrological cycle, it is noteworthy that an increased rate of weathering is likely that would expose new minerals more rapidly and accelerate the long term carbon cycle, potentially taking up more carbon from the atmosphere on century to millennia time scales.
    The take home here is that it is the rate of change that is the problem. Once things get more stable then there is time for life-forms that are better adapted to higher CO2 to potentially benefit (e.g. C3 versus C4 plants, non-calcium carbonate dependent ocean species ).
    Mark
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 10:20pm

    #20

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    At this point...

    …Washington State weather is like Texas weather 20 years ago.  And Texas is getting pretty unbearable in the summer.  Things are heating up.

    Q.E.D.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 10:52pm

    Reply to #10

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Good question?

    Les,I have not read the "Climate of Extremes" book you mention but I was wondering if they covered a few other questions?

    The authors talk about the billions of human lifetimes that we have gained.  They then touch on the potential cost in lives that would occur were we to try to implement any meaningful plan to combat CO2 on a global scale.

    Did they consider that we may not have actually 'gained' any human lifetimes? We might merely have taken them from the future. As you mention, the Earth's carrying capacity for human life is currently being exceeded and is dependent on the lifestyles that we live. The longer we live above the carrying capacity of the planet the more of our future seed corn we are eating. Carrying capacity is dropping every year.
    Also, did they calculate the potential cost in lives of NOT implementing any meaningful plan to combat CO2 increases at a global scale? It seems that without that calculation you cannot meaningfully evaluate if the potential costs would be money well spent. There are a host of intergenerational ethics involved but would billions of lives lost in the short term be worth a hundred future generations of humanity?
    Is there really any choice involved other than timing? The petroleum age will become increasingly hard to maintain as EROEI decreases. 'Action' simply means choosing to reduce our usage before such austerity is forced upon us by diminishing returns on energy invested. Similarly, population control will happen, the only question is whether we will try to manage it ourselves or just let nature sort us out.

    I believe some of the other issues that this website addresses are going to impact humanity far sooner than AGW can become critical.  It appears the first giant shoe will be the debt bubble, followed by much more expensive energy and therefore food and everything else.  Clearly, environmental issues will come into play and already are.

    I completely agree with you and have stated so previously. The financial crisis is the most acute problem but also the least difficult (not easy) to adjust to. The financing exacerbates the energy issues and ultimately force us to change the way we live and how many of us can live here. As unimaginable as it is for petro-man to envision life without energy subsidies, until 150 years ago we had no idea we were lacking this irreplaceable resource. Major trauma will ensue but decreased energy availability is survivable for human society. Environmental issues (including climate change) are the easiest to ignore but the most fundamental predicaments that we face. The finance and energy issues are the key 'Limits to Growth' but destabilizing the climate changes the 'Limits to Life'. Can human societies adjust to that? I do not know.
    At present I have to agree with your sentiment about the unlikelihood of concerted global action on AGW. We have proven to be a generation typified by 'No sacrifice is too small to be endured at any cost'. We have privatized benefits to the present and socialized costs (debt, energy, environment) to the future. Despite this, I have to believe that if human ingenuity can be focused to address our collective predicament then we can accomplish much more than we currently think is possible.
    Has humanity profited from cheap energy? That is a very good question, many humans (including us) have profited, but humanity? Like many investments, I think that the answer will depend on when you check your returns against the costs.
    Mark
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 21, 2013 - 11:05pm

    Reply to #15

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Good adaptation!

    JAG,That is really interesting! I am used to thinking in terms of growing degree days but hadn't seen anything in chilling units. I think that you are making wise decisions for the management of orchard crops in your region. We will increasingly have to adapt to shifting climate baselines.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 2:54am

    Reply to #10

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 465

    No argument we are stealing from the future

     Mark,
    I was summarizing from memory only a few points that the authors made in the last chapter of the book.
    For me personally, I believe that, with or without climate change, we are devastating the carrying capacity of the planet already and will do far more damage before any new balance can be achieved.  It is likely that when we come out the other side of this overshoot, the Earth's carrying capacity for a long time will be a small percentage of what is was before the overshoot.  I also don't believe the capacity was anywhere near 7 billion to begin with.
    But I don’t believe we know enough to put climate change at the top of the environmental issues that are going to result in reduced carrying capacity.  Fit it in with destroying fisheries, polluting the ocean, air and ground water, soil erosion, deforestation, extinction, non-renewable resource depletion and covering our planet with really ugly concrete structures.
    I think it’s hard to predict what we will see as the most devastating issue 100 years from now.
    I’ve done everything a devout climate change believer would do in order to reduce CO2.  It’s just that I’ve done it because Peak Oil seriously scares me.  From that perspective, converting me becomes solely a philosophical battle.
    Regards.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 3:23am

    #21

    ftealjr

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2009

    Posts: 28

    Congratulations for Acknowledging Climate Change

    I have nothing but praise for this excellent interview and Chris' willingness to deal openly with the issue. It definitely belongs as part of the "third E".  Mark, you do an excellent job of presenting a very complex topic in an understandable fashion. The process you described of producing the IPCC report was especially helpful and new to me.

    It might also be interesting to investigate some of the reasons for our unwillingness to accept and deal with issues which are even now having a profound impact on all our lives.  I submit climate change is much like the issue of smoking and health.

    1.  Smoking is extremely pleasurable once one becomes addicted.  Burning fossil fuels has led to the greatest accumulation of wealth and comfort humankind has ever known.
    2. There was an enormous amount of profit to be made in the tobacco business and that is true today in the energy sector.
    3. Folks making such profits wish to continue this for as long as possible and use their wealth to influence legislation and public opinion.
    4. Short of some miraculous new technology, or adaptative process as yet undiscovered, we can’t solve our problem unless we quit smoking or drastically reduce our emissions.
    5. Drastic emissions reductions mean a simpler way of living for all of us, especially those of us who have acquired the most since we are the primary carbon emitters. Stopping smoking means withdrawal pain and deprivation. Both consequences will be very unpleasant in the short term.

    It took a very long time before the cumulative weight of scientific evidence and a supportive mainstream media persuaded most of us to quit smoking.  Eventually the tobacco industry was forced to pay massive penalties for the damage done.  Our health has improved as a result.

    Hopefully more and more voices will be raised to support the need for climate change action until their cumulative weight will be overwhelming.  We can only hope that we have the time for that to happen.  A huge amount of change is already baked into the cake.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 6:30am

    Reply to #8

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Sex and the Single Cell.

    I wouldn't bother going down another gravity well if I got out of this one, MarkBesides which, contrary to the expectations of Starwars, Heinlein and the other SF writers I am willing to bet a bottle of Hooch that Wells had it spot on. If we even so much as touched another living planet all hell would break loose. We have evolved in this organism and this Gaia accomodates us. 
    A self-similar model is a white blood cell in our body.If you put it in the body of an elephant bad things happen.
    We might conceive ourselves to be the bees knees, but all the action happens at the microscopic level. Some absurd amount of what you consider to be "you" is only related to you in the same way that the rest of the biome is. We are walking swamps. Any intercourse with another planet would probably turn both parties into slime.
    Speaking of which, Sex is the way to go. All these monocultures are going to be in big trouble. 
    But if you think that your neighbour is promiscous, she hasn't got anything on microbes. They are over the top. 
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 8:19am

    #22

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    What Will Get Us First?

    I used to think that resource shortages and then financial matters would hit us hard well before environmental problems. However, I've seen human capacity to extend and pretend and don't think debt and other financial matters are likely to be the trigger for a major decline or collapse of societies. Resource shortages might be but there is always the possibility of John Michael Greer's catabolic collapse, where empires/societies contract and feed on themselves, recycling resources already extracted. For sure more and more people will be discarded and left to fend for themselves, if they can, but some semblance of BAU could go on for a long time. A country or state defaulting here or there will just start them on some kind of recovery.

    Environmental collapse, though, is global and on-going. It cannot be glossed over, except on blogs and in governments. It is certainly well within the bounds of possibility that environmental collapse (whether it is climate change, ocean death, or something else) could deal the killer blow. As Mark mentioned, much of the deterioration is going exponential, despite some people casting doubt. We're in unchartered territory as regards the environment, and with population still growing (and not really showing signs of slowing down, as it had been in the early part of this century), there seems to be no prospect of the environment improving or even stabilising.

    Definitely a much neglected topic here and, hopefully, this marks the beginning of better coverage.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 2:18pm

    Reply to #4
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1358

    hmmm

    Stan,It's a little difficulty to transpose your numbers.  5% of what?  Are you talking temperature or CO2 increases?  But, whatever, your temperature numbers are not consistent with the numbers here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-basic.html
    [quote]“According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."[/quote]
    Based on those numbers, at the rate of less than the last 40 years, temperatures should go up about 1.35 to 1.8C by 2100.  But, there is no guarantee that the rate of increase for the last 40 years will remain consistent for the next 87 years.  That rate of warming is dependent on not only CO2 increases, but also methane, H2O and other ghgs, which will change with feedback effects.
    At any rate, this discussion is more appropriate for the climate change thread except to note that Mark's observations that projections need to include a wide range of variability given the complexity of the climate system.  Relying on minimal increases is not a good way to plan for the future in such an environment.
    Doug

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 4:03pm

    Reply to #4

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    log exponential function of a linear variable is linear

    [quote=Doug]Stan,
    It's a little difficulty to transpose your numbers.  5% of what?  Are you talking temperature or CO2 increases?  But, whatever, your temperature numbers are not consistent with the numbers here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-basic.html
    [/quote]
    Doug,
    Skepticalscience has a tendency to fail to state things clearly. Let me repeat, the temperature effect of increasing CO2 varies logarithmically with concentration. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is what is increasing exponentially, at 5% per decade. If continued, the concentration will double in 14 decades. If that causes the temperature to increase by X, then it would increase by X each time the concentration doubles. That number, X, is known as the "climate sensitivity". On the basis of their computer models, the IPCC in its last assessment report estimates X to be somewhere between 2 C and 4.5 C. Their next report will considerably decrease these numbers. If the rate of warming remained in the range 0.15 – 0.2 C per decade for the next 87 years, the temperature would increase by 1.3 C – 1.7 C by 2100. But in actual fact, the average rate of temperature increase has only been 0.07 C per decade for the last century and has been less that that for the last 15 years.
    Finally, it is agreed by alarmists and skeptics alike that the direct effect of CO2 on surface temperatures would be about  X = 1.3 C for a doubling of CO2. The rest of the contributions to a larger X would have to be produced by net positive feedback effects. These have been included in the models, but have not been verified. As Roy Spencer stated, the models may have passed peer review for publication, but none have been verified to have any predictive power for the future. A careful assessment of the models for this purpose has been ongoing for a good while and may be completed within another twenty years.
    I agree with you, that relying on minimal estimates is not a good way to plan for the future, however; hyping large numbers is a poor strategy as well. I find it refreshing that you think that this discussion would be best conducted on the climate change thread, however, I would guess that a majority of its readers don't believe that skeptical views should be permitted there. I agree that it would be a more appropriate forum, but I didn't feel that 6 C temperature increase and 2 meter sea level rise by 2100 should go without comment.
    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 4:52pm

    #23
    JRB

    JRB

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 17 2009

    Posts: 21

    Vocal minority

    Part of the vocal minority deciding to not be very vocal, just irritated.

    – Jim

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 5:18pm

    #24

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4505

    My Thoughts on Climate Change

    Thank you all for keeping this conversation civil, factual, and educational.

    My relative absence from the Climate Change arena reflects very little about my own views on the matter scientifically, but quite a lot about my views on the utility of the AGW story to lead to the sorts of changes I desire to see in the world.

    Behavioral economist Dan Ariely convinced me that humans have a certain amount of hard wiring and that wiring responds better to some threats than others.  If we want people to take something seriously enough to change their behaviors, then the threat we are describing is most powerful if it:

    1. Has a face.  We combat things like Hitler, Saddam, even wolves, because they are easy to identify in our brains.  We are less successful with things like climate change, because there's nothing we can see and touch directly. There is no single foe to defeat.  Worse, the only face we can legitimately attach to the issue is the one we see in the mirror every morning.
    2. Is immediate and visible. The nearer and more immediate the threat, the faster we respond to it.  A saber tooth tiger gets more of our attention than a slowly advancing (or retreating) glacier.  We will dive into a body of water to save a drowning child we see, but barely give a second thought to children dying halfway around the world from fully preventable causes.  Evolutionarily this makes perfect sense, but it is a distinct liability for a species with the ability to fundamentally deplete resources that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate over a few hundred years.  Similarly, discussions about potential changes in 2100 tend to lose a lot of people.
    3. Is concrete.  Statistical arguments really lose most people.  Even the idea of smoking, with its very high statistical chance of leading to illness and premature death, is not compelling enough to get people to quit or to not take it up at all.  The point here is that humans do better with certainty than with uncertain arguments, even though statistical methods are really solid and businesses and financial people use them every day to great effect.  Uncertain, or statistical, arguments are far less effective than you might expect based on the (severity) x (likelihood) outcome of some things like climate change.
    4. Is something we can control.  This means we have some sense of agency in the cause.  If it's something that we feel we have very little control over, that serves to blunt our tendency towards action.  The things we can control are the ones we react to best and with the most vigor.  What sense of control does any one person have in the climate change story given that most think that even if their entire nation gave up burning fossil fuels, China would simply do it instead?  

    As I've said many times, I am completely agnostic as to why somebody does something, only that they do it.  If one person installs solar hot water because it is a good investment, and another does it because this is a great way to put less carbon in the atmosphere, those are completely identical actions to me.  No difference.

    If I put in fruit trees because I wish to bolster my neighborhood's food security (true), and my neighbor has put in fruit trees after seeing mine because they remind him of how much he enjoyed their blossoms as a boy (true), these are completely identical actions to me.  No difference between them. 

    By dropping my requirement that people do things for the same reason that I do them, and letting them do them for their own reasons, I have opened up a much wider set of possible avenues to engage people and to support their concrete actions.  

    Of course, once people discover that there are many changes that one can make that require very little in the way of modifying living habits, save money, save energy, and are good for the environment, then I believe that there's a far greater chance that more and more people will resonate with these actions and want to try them out for themselves.  

    So….I happen to believe that all of the myriad ways that 7 billion people are changing the ecosystems of the world are quite serious and deserve our very best attention, and that it is my job to discover and continue to refine the very best ways to reach the most people and support their taking concrete actions.

    As it happens, personal resilience and community engagement are very neatly aligned with the same actions that climate change would have us undertake, but they seem to offer a tougher path to personal change than other ones.  

    Perhaps there's another way to see this, but this line of thinking explains why I have not chosen to make it the central argument for change, or even close to a central argument.

    All that said, I am deeply grateful that the conversation is being held, and that dedicated people are looking closely at the matter, as I am glad there are scientists and activists concerned with every corner and facet of our earth's ecosystems and denizens.  

    I fully welcome the conversation happening here and am 100% open to any and all ideas about how to re-frame any and every issue that we think could or should be motivational (if not aspirational) towards changing behaviors so that we can create a world worth inheriting.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 7:36pm

    #25
    jdye51

    jdye51

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 17 2011

    Posts: 151

    Thanks Chris

    Chris, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that it is better to be proactive than reactive and that the reason for doing so isn't as important as the action taken. Is that right? Whether a person responds more to the threat of economic collapse, resource depletion, climate change or any other interest (nostalgia!) isn't the most important factor – just that a positive change is made. Your focus in your work is to be as inclusive as possible in order to spread the word as much as possible.

    Economic issues are the most concrete and immediate of the three E's for the general population. I would place resource depletion a distant second and climate change an even more distant third. My sense is that this is, in general, the weight given to the issues covered here at PP. Catch people's attention first where they are most likely to respond, while introducing them to the importance of the other two E's and how they all interact.

    I am grateful for the work you do and respect the choice you've made. You've identified a niche and are filling it as a gateway to increased awareness. You and Adam have created a place where people can discuss these difficult challenges thoughtfully and with civility.

    My own journey has led me to conclude that, while truly horrendous in scope and impact, economic collapse and resource depletion are survivable for some. But change the biosphere enough, and we are toast along with all the lifeforms dependent on the status quo. To me, that's the bottom line. I can't seem to get past that. I agree that it is a tougher path than the others when trying to engage people's attention and promote motivation for change. But, clearly there are those here on PP who would like more emphasis on it, and I appreciate this interview with Mark as a recognition of that interest. It's good to feel heard.

    I suppose preparing revolves around what you imagine will happen. Will the end of industrial civilization be enough to tilt the odds towards continued existence or will life destroying planetary changes prevail? I don't have the answer to that so I prepare anyway.

    Thanks for being open to the continuation of this conversation. I look forward to it.

    Joyce

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 9:11pm

    #26
    Don35

    Don35

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 04 2012

    Posts: 33

    "My Thoughts On Climate Change"

    Thanks Chris for such an emotionally mature response. That approach to our continuing difficulties is the main reason I am a such fan of PP. No screaming and shouting, no politics or religion, no gnashing of teeth, no denigration of anyone; just a genuine effort to share wisdom. It sets the best tone for constructive conversations. All the other responses cloud the mind. Thank you!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 11:07pm

    #27

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The CIA

    Due to its efforts, it's clear the CIA is taking the issue of global warning very seriously. Changes in geography, could for example, cause wars. If snow pack melts, more land becomes available, also new shipping lanes will open up—both could become zones of contention. There is also the possibility of strife as some areas receive more rainfall and others less.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-cia-co-sponsoring-geoengineering-reversing-global.html#jCp

    Physorg

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 22, 2013 - 11:11pm

    #28

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    GHGs

    I think it's important to realise that greenhouse gases consist of more than CO2. Using conservative numbers for CO2 equivalents, there is the equivalent of 470 ppm of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Methane is particularly potent, however, over shorter time scales and a more reasonable equivalent would be closer to 550 ppm, since methane may be relatively short lived but it also increasing, year on year (i.e. there is enough being emitted to replace the stuff being degraded and still increase the overall proportion).

    So basing calculations of minimum heating expected should take into account all GHGs, not just CO2. We should also not assume that current rates of increase will not increase.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:03am

    #29
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    The truth is perceived not reasoned

    One of my favorite philosphers said once that if you are thinking you are already confused. The truth is perceived not reasoned. Plato's cave is for the rational mind and its limitations.  If any explanation is necessary then none will do, if no explanation is necessary, than any will do.

    Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive, for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them' 

    In our petrol addicted society we go from air conditioned home to air conditioned car to air conditioned office.  We can conceive of no other life, if the planet is dying we dream of remaking in accordance with our own imagination even though we can not even control ourselves.  We perceive the world with our hearts and use our minds to justify our resultant actions.  Yet we know the world not at all.

    Science was mans bid to be god, the religion of our modern age, and for us to be god we first had to kill the world.  It first had to be rendered meaningless, lifeless, unconscious and dead, the result of random chemical reactions.  The eagle, the bear, the dog, the humpback whale, the dolphin and the sparrow have no innate natures that we need to respect, learn from, they ours to transform at our whim, even before we have taken the time to know them.  Knowing them is not important, what is important is to bend them all to our will, because we worship power.  Wealth and power above all else.

    Let there be no god at all, least of all man.  Let's take our place amoungst a living conscious universe, treating each other the world around us with love and respect.  Rather than debate the reality of climate change, lets open our hearts and eyes and see the dying planet and act accordingly.   Rather than debate economic policy, lets open our hearts and ears and hear what they are saying and act accordingly.  Rather than debate social policy, lets open our hearts and hands and touch the suffering around and within us and act accordingly.

    Sorry about all of that, but to hear climate change still debated throws me into fits of bombast.  We all know what to do, lets find the courage to do it and get to work. This will not be a holywood drama with a quick ending, but a long and protracted struggle, that will take the best of minds and hearts.

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:03am

    #30
    treemagnet

    treemagnet

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 14 2011

    Posts: 279

    The

    Last time I looked, big rigs like mine with 80,000 GCVW ratings burn diesel.  And lots of it.  Any thoughts on that?  How much more are you willing to pay for….everything?   Go ahead and kick me where the interweb don't shine, but how 'bout it?  Without trucks, Amerika stops.  Before you answer, remember that most don't earn what the average PP member does, and can't think, then act on those thoughts.  Give me a solution that doesn't involve the government.  It's one thing to revel in the like mindedness of PP, and I do largely agree with some of you, but…..execution.  The killer of great ideas.  

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:50am

    Reply to #29

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    treebeard wrote:. . .

    [quote=treebeard]
    . . . Science was mans bid to be god, the religion of our modern age, and for us to be god we first had to kill the world. . . .
    [/quote]
    Science is man's bid to know what is real and what is true of the world; to face unvarnished truths without deceiving ourselves.
    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 2:15am

    Reply to #30

    Stan Robertson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 516

    Problems can be opportunities

    [quote=treemagnet]Last time I looked, big rigs like mine with 80,000 GCVW ratings burn diesel.  And lots of it.  Any thoughts on that? . . .
    [/quote]
    How about rebuilding a good light railroad system that would get some of those 18-wheelers off the interstates. Then convert a lot more of them to run on compressed natural gas. That would save fuel and extend engine lives with hardly any inconvenience. Even if the wellhead price of natural gas doubled it would still be cheaper than diesel and a higher natural gas price would assure an adequate supply for many years. Shale oil is already beginning to suffer from the "red queen effect", but shale gas and tight gas sands will not do so for many, many years given proper pricing.
    I view natural gas as a bridge fuel; something to begin addressing the problems of fuel for transportation and agriculture. That it is a cleaner burning fuel is a plus and it is already largely responsible for reducing CO2 production of the U.S. back to about 1992 levels.
    Stan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 2:17am

    #31

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    Chris hit the nail on the head

    With his line of thinking that no one pays much attention if there is no imminent threat, or clear and present danger. Oh yes, another day, things are a mess, yadda yadda, carry on as normal folks…There has as yet been no real widespread consequences for the decades long party, and as long as no one says" last call" without any real conviction, things are not going to change. This is why David Suzuki and his ilk have not gotten very far in terms of real results, and ditto for Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and so on. Sure they have small wins under their belts, but nothing significant enough to make a dent in the overall problem. There is no real tangible, wrap your arms around crisis yet.

    Treemagnet, you are right, if the trucks stop everything stops. I am not looking to government for solutions, for I have no confidence in government as it exists now. Our solutions will come from the smart few who "get it", and do something about it. Now that could be a person like you. It appears you are in the transport business. A day or two ago there was a daily digest article about how wasteful packaging contributed to un-necessary transportation costs, fuel use etc. My understanding is trucks are packed on the basis of volume or weight, depending on what is being shipped. Can the truckers not work with the suppliers to target things like excessive packaging and all the other crap that we really don't need, which will coincidentally also reduce oil demand for wasteful stuff. Done properly, there could be a significant impact on things like shipment frequencies, which would go to reducing CO2 emmisions. You know, quality vs. quantity. The outfits that work smarter will do well, and those that don't adapt, well, the market will decide. It's entirely possible there are too many rigs on the road. We can do better. People like you can effect change, if you put your mind to it and if you are prepared to be a part of the solution.

    I also would like to take you to task [again 😉 ] for your generalized comment re the PP membership and their financial circumstances. I won't speak for others but believe me, I am no where near the top of the money making pole… I am here because I have found a place with like minded people who I can interact with in a constructive, intelligent manner. How much people have – who knows?!? There are likely some wealthy people and also some regular Jane's and Joe's (like me!) Don't forget there is a global readership, so there are many facets of diversity. Think of it like the real estate market. There are lots of people in million dollar homes with million dollar mortgages…and lots of other debt to supplement the mortgage. Wealth can be illusionary so don't think you are necessarily walking in vaunted circles here.

    Jan

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 3:05am

    Reply to #31
    treemagnet

    treemagnet

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 14 2011

    Posts: 279

    Jan,

    It's clear that the gulf of misunderstanding with regards to transportation is beyond profound here at PP.  You've got to expose yourself (no pun intended) to the reality of trucking…..dry and reefer.  And yeah Jan, I generalized to make a general point in a general kind of way….big deal.  The point I was working towards was not just financial but goals, attitudes, life choices….and the willingness to dedicate resources to achieve those ends, personally or otherwise.  Hopefully this clarifies my earlier thought.  If not, let me know and I'll try again.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 3:50am

    Reply to #31

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    please expand for us

    It's clear that the gulf of misunderstanding with regards to transportation is beyond profound here at PP.

    I would like to understand your point of view better. Please expand on this for me (us).
    Jan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 4:54am

    #32
    jdye51

    jdye51

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 17 2011

    Posts: 151

    Left brain, right brain

    Some of the difficulty in communicating about issues like climate change may be due to what I believe Treebeard is referring to: there are different kinds of knowing. It's something I've brought up in other threads. We associate left brain thinking with linear thought and language and right brain thinking with global thought and creativity.  (See the book "A Stroke of Insight" for a fascinating look at the role each plays). Left brain cognition has clearly been more prized in our society but both are needed for a more complete picture of reality. You might even say we are suffering from a deficit of right brain intuition and are relying too heavily on only one type of knowing. IMO this is part of the imbalance we see all around us. We have lost our connection to the whole of nature in a way that has allowed us to exploit and damage the planet because we see ourselves as separate from it. Such hubris!

    The information I've been taking in for quite some time now catalogs a litany of the ways we are damaging our biosphere. Scientific studies and reports by those already directly affected tell us what is happening. We can all make a list of species extinction, overfishing, habitat destruction, water and air pollution and so on. Add in our greed and self-interest in so many other aspects of life and the picture that emerges of humanity is a dark one. I know the truth of our danger both logically and intuitively. I feel it based on a lifetime of experience and observation. I realize to someone who only acknowledges left brain knowing this is so much gibberish and nonsence. But to those who "hear" and "see" it makes perfect sense. There is a deep knowing, a sense of wrongness in how we live. Our whole way of operating in the world has led us to where we are and what we face. How do we change enough, fast enough? Everything is so intertwined, so entangled. And so many are asleep or too focused on daily survival to care. Some of us are aware and looking for answers but we are the minority. A tiny minority. People like Chris are stepping up and doing their best to educate and alert others. Perhaps Jan is correct though and it will take a large enough crisis to shake things up enough to even get people's attention. Or a series of large enough crises. Unfortunately, by then so much damage may have occured that we won't have the ability to respond effectively.

    Personally, I think the outer reflects the inner and that it is our inner transformation that is the key. The outer world is a mirror reflecting our beliefs and behaviors in a concrete way. It's here, right in our faces showing us where we are going wrong. Until we can know we are a part of a web of life larger than ourselves, we will continue on in the same selfish destructive way.

    Long past my bedtime. Thanks Treebeard for your passion.

    Joyce

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 5:10am

    #33

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    What will get us to change?

    Chris thinks that problems other than environmental are more likely to get us to change our ways. I used to think that, too. I don't now. The ability of humans to extend and pretend are infinite or seem to be. Chris has concentrated on financial and economic matters here but I wonder how many have changed their lives in ways that are actually meaningful to environmental degradation. Some are even still looking for a "solution" and one that doesn't involve giving up their current way of life or their current living.

    So, of the four factors that Chris listed, how do each of the 3 E subjects stack up? How about climate change, and environmental degradation generally? It doesn't have a face, but then, in the 3 Es, what does? Is it immediate and visible? Certainly. We don't have to wait until 2100 to see what is happening, it's quite possible to look around and see the degradation already wrought over the past 50 years. How about Arctic sea ice? How about ocean garbage patches, dead zones and lack of big fish? How about the pine beetle advance? How about colony collapse disorder with bees? How about the distinct lack of song birds in some regions? How about extreme weather events? It would be quite possible to see real impacts now, which are probably much easier to visualise than debt levels or GDP growth slowdown. Is it concrete? Already covered. Is it something we can control? Well, we don't have agency over it but we sure as hell can make it a lot worse.

    I agree with Chris that it doesn't matter what makes people make meaningful changes that will help mitigate or adapt to the predicament we're now in but I really don't see such changes happening on anything like a meaningful scale. In Kevin Anderson's talk last year, he showed how quickly emissions need to peak and come down to have a just a chance of keeping within even the potentially catastrophic rise of 2C. And this is just for climate change. 30% of wildlife has gone, since 1970 and the 6th extinction event is ongoing. So we really need serious changes now and I'm not sure what will get us to make those changes. Perhaps we need to emphasise ALL of the issues that comprise our predicament. Maybe the best way is to continually emphasise ALL of the issues but I certainly feel that environmental degradation is the most important, as the environment is crucial to our very lives, and those of our children and grandchildren.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 8:10am

    #34

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    All three 'E's are windows to the same dilemma

    In providing the Peak Prosperity site, Chris and Adam have given us all a location where we can share information, perspectives and insights. We've all been drawn here for one reason or another but something about the tenets of the Crash Course rings true above the mainstream chorus of 'everything is under control'.

    The Economy, Energy, and Environment issues are all telling us the same thing but in different ways, namely that the way human societies are currently living is unsustainable. It's a three horse race for what will actually trigger (or has already triggered?) the changes that we have to go through but it is unimportant as no one wins regardless, since all of them are tied to the same runaway chariot. We do not get one or the other or some sequence of them, we get them all together.

    I share the pragmatism that Chris articulated regarding building personal and community resilience. It doesn't matter which particular E or combination of Es motivates you to work towards improving your situation, it is your doing something about it that is important. No one knows exactly how things will play out so no one can be 100% prepared. No matter what though we can each try to get a little more prepared day by day and year by year.

    Given this podcast and my professional life, the environment is obviously an important factor in my thinking but it was not enough to move me to action in my personal life. The economy sucks and my family's financial situation has suffered but that wasn't enough to make me actively pursue changes. What did it for me was actually the energy situation as explained by Chris in the Crash Course. Anyone who lived through the 70s has been aware of the limits to fossil fuel energy but learning about the diminishing returns evident in the EROEI of our energy sources is what broke down the last vestiges of my normalcy bias.

    It doesn't matter what form of life you talk about, energy is the currency or the realm. Less energy flow means less of everything is supportable. In ecological terms, you've got plants that convert solar energy into carbohydrates, herbivores (deer, rabbits etc) that eat plants, carnivores (cats, wolves etc) that eat herbivores, and detritovores/decomposers that eat everything left over eventually. The key point though is that there are energy costs at every level:

    The energy is passed on from trophic level to trophic level and each time about 90% of the energy is lost, with some being lost as heat into the environment (an effect of respiration) and some being lost as incompletely digested food (egesta). Therefore, primary consumers get about 10% of the energy produced by autotrophs, while secondary consumers get 1% and tertiary consumers get 0.1%. This means the top consumer of a food chain receives the least energy, as a lot of the food chain's energy has been lost between trophic levels. This loss of energy at each level limits typical food chains to only four to six links. (source)

    The same process holds for the complexity of human societies. Lots of energy flow allows for globalization and extra social 'trophic' levels. As the energy bonanza winds down, the number of levels that can be supported drops. Relocalization is the new fronteir.

    Whether another financial disaster sucks up the capital needed to finance energy and other resource extraction activities or rising energy and environmental costs trigger an economic meltdown doesn't really matter. In any scenario, there is going to be more need for personal and local resiliency.

    Mark

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 9:39am

    #35

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Flea Brained.

    Fleas can be trained to believe that it is impossible to jump high.

    I saw this lovely picture. In it you can see what the fuss is about. Those little dots. Notice how small it is in the scheme of things. See too how much real estate there is out there. How much room. How many resources. How bountiful and extravagant the cosmos is.

    Are we fleas?

    APOD

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 11:05am

    #36
    Rob P

    Rob P

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 09 2008

    Posts: 36

    A couple of comments

    Firstly, in regard to what to do to reduce Co2 and more general resource consumption: I don't think federal government intervention, policy change, is the answer.  I'll just summarize by saying that our government is too courrupt at this point, and we are in a process of decentralization.  The answers must be at the local level in my opinion.

    I'll give one sociologists take on it:

    The problem at this level is twofold:  A. people here in the US have been socialized into a taken-for-granted human contrived world that seems "normal".  I can give many examples, but maybe just consider transportation.  Even a hundred years ago traveling from coast to coast was a big trip, but now it takes a few hours.  Two hundred years ago it was a really really big trip: think Lewis and Clark. People of the past were much much more limited in terms of movement.  But the point is that the current generation, myself included, live with our now unprecidented mobility as a norm.  It is "normal" to get into a personal car at any time and go virtually anywhere.  The point: people do not give this up, or even modify their behavior in this area, easily.  They do not know the historical context as this  world is  typically, the only world they've ever know; the techological, oil-based "norm" is reinforced continuously by everyone around them.   Moreover, they like the convenience and so forth, and would prefer to not look at any of this very closely.  We have extremely high Carbon lifestyles, but this appears as a "normal" world and way of doing things even though it is actually extreme and unprecidented. 

    This normative bias can change but, at least where I live it is a very slow process. It seems to me that it seldom changes by conscious choice, but more likely by coercive economic factors (e g high gas prices). A similar normative analysis can be applied to food, shelter and pretty much any area you like out here in consumer land. I think that most of the people at this site are consciously  challenging the norms in multiple areas, but we are the minority where I live (that's for sure). But even those of us who are challenging consumerism and dependency on the system are typically, still using way way too much fossil fuels; it's probably not even close to enough reduction per capita. Which brings me round to point two.

    Secondly, this "normal" human contrived world has tremendous intertia and limitations that are structural. For instance:  I don't have the choice to take the train to Memphis. I did when I was a kid, but sometime after WWII policy decisions were made that we would become an automobile society. This was perhaps reflective of our individualistic tendencies, but more likely, it was a matter of corporate influence and PR (pretty well documented). Anyway, the interestates were built and the passenger train system dismantled.  Now, this is structural and not easily changed or undone at this point. People live within this system without alternatives and, again, as if it is "normal".  (Side note:  how does a country that is 17 trillion dollars in debt build a new rail system?)

    The point is, try as I might, I cannot easily – if at all – overcome my dependence on the system and oil.  My life is deeply wrapped up with it at the structural level. I can change a lot and I have, but, as an example, everything I buy involves oil. So, let's say I want to put a tank on the house to catch roof water in order to use less oil; but it's made from oil, using oil, and trasported to me with oil.  We are embedded in this system, with structural limitations,  in virtually everything we do.

    We do what we can, but I doubt it will be enough, by enough people, and soon enough. In my assessment, the situation requires dramatic changes in lifestyle by large numbers of people here in consumerland.  This isn't happening.

    To be honest, although I keep trying, I'm really not optomistic about the situation.  I feel really bad, for today's kids and future generations.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:26pm

    #37
    yogiismyhero

    yogiismyhero

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 28 2013

    Posts: 174

    My Dear Friends, let me take a stab at this...

    …as I have read every statistic and followed Dr. Cochrane threads since it went up with little commentary.

    How about you personally begin by:

    Walking more.

    Ride your bike.

    Recycle at home.

    Plan your meals and do not waste.

    Use waste like coffee grounds in your garden and other soil amending products.

    Use plastic containers as plant containers.

    Use paper instead of plastic.

    Buy recycle bags for packing your groceries at the store.

    Make your own food like spaghetti noodles and place them in sealed jars. Save on packaging wherever you can.

    The use of your automobile should be for necessary trips like work and where the math makes sense walk to the store or stop on the way home. Point being, be conscious of where you are and what you pass and eliminate many trips just by coming and going to necessary places. The kids get driven nowhere. Biking and walking is great for them and parents don't need to constantly being in control of their lives. Allow them to think, get in shape and day dream often, uninterupted. Please. No negotiation with kids, ever. They will be fine so long as you give them rules and boundaries.

    Leed by example.

    Stop ripping Chris for not doing enough as just having this discussion is a huge leep forward for many people reading this stuff for the first time.

    Many of these things we all do but we need to do better. Make it a joyful exclamation when describing these simple tasks to friends or families. I compliment my wife in front of people, like the set up Man and she modestly and sincerely is flattered, and you would be surprised at how many do this now, recycle, make fewer trips, and things like that. 

    Talking and doing are two different animals. Fighting among like minded people is counter productive and very discouraging. Just do your best and reasonable people will follow without a brain cramp from do gooders. IMHO.

    Eventually we will have to face down all of these issues so be helpful when it does. As for now, we can only hope and pray that a horrific accident isn't in the cards before we see what we must do as a world community as everything done in China for instance is done to us. In the mean time just enjoy life, be joyful and entertaining, and during this process of living life be conscious of the fact that someone is watching and the actions you are doing at the moment may just cause many people to figure it out.

    Gone golfing and I WALK! Car pool with my son and he picks me up. Even better.

    Yogi

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:39pm

    #38
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Balance in all things

    The mind makes a great worker but a terrible master.  Think Nazi doctors experimenting on fellow human beings in their quest for knowledge.  Or any despot or tyrant who is able seize power and rule a country, no small mental feat or excercise of will.  Look at modern industrial agriculture that thinks dosing million of acres of land with glyphosate (roundup) a general biocide that renders our lands so dead and lifeless that only genetically modified organisms can survive there a rational approach to growing food.  This is farming?!  Yet life persists, it dosen't complain, it adapts, "weeds" now invade these lifeless plains that we have created.

    Here in the USA we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, mass shooting occur on a regular basis (sorry, you can't explain that on an individual basis), 1.6 million people here are homeless, one in five children here experience hunger on a regular basis, one in five young women in our culture will experience rape or attempted rape,  on average 600 women a day are assulted, we spend more money on armaments in the us than the rest of the world combined, we consume more elicit drugs than any other country in the world fueling drug wars on our boarders, political and economic corruption is endemic.  Will a culture like this respond "intelligently" to global climate change?

    I would like to make the case that peak oil and climate change are diseases that have invaded a body that is already out of order to restore balance.  Such distortions already existed before we knew anything about climate change and peak anything. The Hopi word for this is koyaanisqatsi, Godfrey Reggio has made a visually intense film of the same name that describes the same which I can highly recommend.

    Jan has used the more familiar terms of left and right brain to describe different modes of perception to lend scientific legitimacy to the concpet (thank you).  Supression of our "emotional" nature, to often thought as the cause of our problems, leaves us badly out balance, disaffected, disconnected, and extremely prone to violence.  Connection to the heart not only restores balance and promotes healing, but opens the gate to higher levels of thought and perception.

    To attempt to address climate change and peak oil alone will be fruitless because they are not the cause of the problem but the effects of a deeper disease.  Dan Ariely piece describes not the wiring of "normal" human beings, but is the measure of our current imbalance.  Statistical analysis necessarily beccomes self referential as it establishes the current status quo as the norm.

    If we live to much in our hearts then our reaction to our current predicament may be nothing but ineffectual hand wringing and paralysis, but perhaps even that is perhaps better than a life in the head that has lead to the monstrous disaffected violence we now experience on a daily basis.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:46pm

    #39

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    a great TED talk in relation to this topic

    This video is just shy of 20 minutes but well worth the time to watch

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 1:54pm

    Reply to #31
    treemagnet

    treemagnet

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 14 2011

    Posts: 279

    Jan,

    Truly I would, but don't know how to cram the totality of what happens in the world of trucking/warehousing/transportation into a nugget of info that makes sense.  Each operation is different, and each has to achieve the same result – fresh produce to the frozen north in the dead of winter is not the same as dry goods to the southeast in fall.  Its a grimy, unpleasant world mostly – so when someone you love proclaims to want to marry a trucker, smack it out of them (thats a joke).  I think people see a shiny truck all polished up and think, thats trucking.  Like how they see a farmer in a pretty green john deere tractor and think, thats farming.  In all reality, those images are just images.  I'm rambling, I don't know where to begin – I really don't.  I guess transportation as we know it will change from tranporting things we want to things we need to finally some things we need and then…..?  Sorry, this is a waste of your time and mine.  Its a broken industry that largely and sporadically pretends to be about professionalism and safety – its about cheap freight, and all that goes with that. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 2:19pm

    #40

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    I appreciate all the perspectives

    I appreciate all the perspectives that have been expressed on this thread. I'm in the midst of my attempt to go on my usual summer technology hiatus (turn off all technology – internet, cell phone, computer, etc.), but I haven't been too successful. I've definitely cut my use by about 80%, but then I have the urge to see what the newest article/podcast is and then threads like this suck me in.  If only our mainstream media could express so many different viewpoints. It's a wonderful testament to this site.

    Mark, congratulations on a wonderful podcast. You've devoted a lot of your professional and personal time to this site, and although I don't post much on your PP thread, I read most of it. Thank you so much for all you do.

    Stan, Sofistek, Doug, Eric… Your debates on the issues are important and bring forth new contexts.

    Arthur, your perspective is, well… always unique, and much appreciated.

    Jan, you are forever the voice of reason and respect.

    Yogi and Treemagnet, you keep it real, practical, and down at dirt level. So important!

    Treebeard, thank you for bringing every issue back to the communal heart, where our spirit lies.

    Jdye51, left brain and right brain is so true. I could only smile when I read Stan's post 48, the stark difference between LB/RB.

    Chris and Adam (and all who work at PP), you carry a mighty torch! …hope the Kripalu session went well.

    Anyone I've left out, all the diversity of your perspectives is what I appreciate. We may not agree with each other, but the dialogue is meaningful.

    Okay, now I'm going to try and turn off the computer, go down to the river behind our house with my daughter, take a swim, and try to be one with nature!

    Just wanted to voice my appreciation. Great thread!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 2:22pm

    Reply to #31

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    no worries

    Hey treemagnet,I get your drift and I had to laugh at smacking someone who wants to marry a trucker. My sister is married to a trucker, and he is one of the best people I know! He delivers beer for Labatt's Brewery, so he is much loved by everyone But for sure I can relate to what you say about people's perceptions.
    You are so right about the complexity of the transportation system and I get that. Also that it is broken. I can empathize with you in that I think that all of this talk of climate change, reducing emissions, and so on is a real and direct threat to your way of life – how you make your living and provide for your family. So you are allowed to be angry. I would be too if I was in your position.
    Like many I wish I could wave my magic wand and make it all go away. But you and I both know that is not going to happen, so we have to do the next best thing, which is to do what we can to effect change at our own levels, in whatever capacity that may be.
    Gotta run…
    Jan
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 2:25pm

    Reply to #29

    JAG

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 240

    Time for Keisaku

    [quote=treebeard]One of my favorite philosphers said once that if you are thinking you are already confused. The truth is perceived not reasoned. Plato's cave is for the rational mind and its limitations.  If any explanation is necessary then none will do, if no explanation is necessary, than any will do.
    [/quote]
    I think someone here needs to be hit with the Keisaku. Lip Zen has no business in this discussion. Science is a tool, not a religion.
    Can we please talk about climate change and what one can do to prepare for its possible consequences?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 4:12pm

    #41
    phil hecksel

    phil hecksel

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2010

    Posts: 139

    Mark,Thank you for the

    Mark,

    Thank you for the presentation.  I'm still a skeptic, but have a better understanding of the potential.  Too many of the sky is falling (heating?) crowd have presented it as a singular and linear problem.  If I correctly understand your presentation, it is multi faceted, and non linear.

    Which brings me to an unresolved question in my simple linear brain…  With the apparent heating that is taking place, there has to be an H2O phase transformation.  What impact with the phase change have on the total atmospheric energy?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 4:30pm

    #42

    Mary Aceves

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 23 2010

    Posts: 132

    Coursera Course on Climate Change

    There is a Coursera Course on Climate Change that starts on Aug. 12th.  It's free, and I think these things are fun.  This one is out of Austrailia, so it should be free from our media bias in the U.S.  For a person with no scientific training like myself, it should be informative.  

    In my other classes the forums have been very interesting.  If nothing else, you could start your own threads to get a conversation going.  In two of my classes there were over 10,000 students participating, so you would have a wide audience from all over the world.

    I am in no way associated with Coursera, except that I am taking three classes right now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 4:32pm

    #43

    Mary Aceves

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 23 2010

    Posts: 132

    oops--contact

    https://www.coursera.org/course/climatechange

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 7:05pm

    #44
    jdye51

    jdye51

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 17 2011

    Posts: 151

    Further thoughts

    Rob made a point that I think is worth repeating: i.e. how we are all so embedded in the system we are currently living in and how difficult it is to change that due to inertia, denial and structural issues. Billions of people have never even heard of the phrases climate change or peak oil. Governments are too invested in the status quo and too broke to do anything of real significance. How much can be done on a local level that will make a big enough difference when the rest of the world continues business as usual? Earthquakes kill in China because of shoddily built buildings. They fall, people die, and new shoddy buildings are built in their place. Increasing water and food scarcity results in more violence and destruction. Economic collapse means less money for infrustructure upkeep and more failed systems which means more dead people, particularly when the next Sandys hit with increasing frequency. Cities are going bankrupt and cutting police and fire services. Look at any aspect of modern life and you will see the cracks widening. As Tony said, big changes are needed right now and what will get us to make those changes?

    I'm not particularly optimistic either because of the staggering numbers of serious problems we face without the will to face them. We can't change that which we don't acknowledge. Everything – everything must be demolished if we are to have a chance. Industrial civilzation must fall. It's all connected, so it all has to unravel. Oil underlies everything we do. The world, especially the developed countries, are hostage to it. Without enough of it/too high a price, systems will fail right and left and the consquences will be famine, strife, and the general breakdown of society. This is radical and life altering. Then there is the tick tock of climage change and environmental degredation closing the noose even tighter. We're looking at cascades of failure on a gigantic scale.

    You see, we are so captured and blinded by normalcy we can't begin to imagine these things actually happening. But that is our inexorable path at present. Things are breaking down. Too many things at once. And too many of us are oblivious or in denial. The reality and magnitude of our predicament is not easily grasped. Our imagination fails us and we fall back on familiar coping mechanisms. We here at PP have been able to allow in enough of this awareness to be alarmed and to make moves to adjust our lifestyles however we are able to. Even so, IMO there is still a certain level of denial here. Understandable when contemplating the end of everything we know. (Some denial can be a good thing when it allows us to carry on and function.) One thing I know from working with clients, is that reality is hard to face. But a surprising thing happens when we do. The energy shifts in a more positive direction. So far, there hasn't been such an acknowledgement by a sufficiently large number of people for the energy to shift on a global scale. We tend to compartmentalize and focus on one thing at a time when the problems are systemic and need simultaneous action.

    Facing reality doesn't mean giving up. It doesn't mean giving in to despair. But it has to happen before change is possible. More and more of us need to speak the truth – to ourselves and others. That's not easy to do. People push back, find fault, denigrate, attack because reality is too frightening to them and they have so much invested in prolonging the status quo.

    These are interesting times to live in. I wonder how it will all turn out.

    Joyce

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 10:44pm

    Reply to #40

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Wow, just wow

    Gillbilly,Thank you for articulating the great benefit of the quality and diversity of viewpoints for this discussion. It is great to have real discussions about real issues where disagreement doesn't necessarily mean being disagreeable. We depend on each other more than we know.
    One life experience that has stuck with me is the years I spent out at sea in a submarine. Talk about social experiments. Stick 170 people from all sorts of backgrounds in a metal can without sunlight or communications with the outside world for months. Add in long hours of work, tedium, danger, lack of privacy and psychological games as a sport, mix with nuclear missiles and a reactor, and wait for the fun to develop. Being stuck living more closely with people I didn't know and sometimes couldn't stand than anyone in my own family was a lesson in tolerance. Everyone's lives depended on everyone doing the right things at the right times, especially when things went wrong (and they did!). You didn't have to like someone to learn to depend upon and respect them.
    The point of this digression is that we are all sailing together on the good ship Earth. We need to stop thinking of 'us' and 'them'. The economic, energy, and environmental problems are all holes in the hull of the current social paradigm. When the water is coming in you better start bailing/pumping. Don't wait for everyone else to wake up before you start. They'll be bailing alongside of you soon enough. Saying that 'we' aren't going to bail if 'they' don't start bailing too, while the only ship we all have to live on is sinking is beyond foolish. Grab anything you can from a bucket to a teacup (depending on your individual means) and lend a hand. As friends and family awaken, hand them a pail.
    It may seem a hopeless task but the point is not to save our current society, it is to keep things afloat long enough for us to make the transition to a more sustainable way of living in concert with the rest of life on our planet.
    Mark
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 23, 2013 - 10:52pm

    Reply to #40
    yogiismyhero

    yogiismyhero

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 28 2013

    Posts: 174

    Yep, Gillbilly is the Man...

    I love the dude. He's a Brother, to all causes of fairness and justice. Forgive me Gillbilly for being so nice.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 24, 2013 - 2:21am

    Reply to #41

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Two phase changes going on

    Phecksel,A very good question. As the atmosphere warms it is able to hold more water (as per the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). Heat evaporates water, water vapor rises and condenses to form clouds and then rain/snow. What this means is that all of the energy needed to evaporate the water gets released into the atmosphere at the height and location of the water condensation imparting the heat at that location.
    Water vapor in the atmosphere increases by 6-7.5% for every 1 C increase in atmospheric temperature. So far we've warmed about 0.8 C (with another 0.8 C already unavoidable). The atmosphere holds about 12,900 cubic kilometers (3,100 cubic miles) of water, so we have added about 722 cubic kilometers (174 cu/mi) of water to the atmosphere. That makes 7.22e+11 kg of water and 1.622 exajoules of extra energy bouncing around the atmosphere. The key thing to keep in mind is that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas too. What this means is that for every 1 C of forcing we get from increased CO2, we get another 1 C of warming from increased water vapor that goes into the atmosphere. Additional feedbacks (methane, albedo) may add up to another 1 C of forcing.
    The second major phase change going on is that global warming is causing glaciers around the planet and the Arctic sea ice to melt. Glaciers are losing about 300 billion tons of ice a year and that rate is going up each year. That means that the past ice ages are providing an energy sink of about 100 petajoules per year that is slowing global warming but increasing sea levels. The loss of glaciers and especially the loss of Arctic sea ice is changing the albedo (shininess) of the planet. What this means is that less sunlight gets reflected off snow/ice and more gets converted to heat in the oceans and land. This means faster warming. For the Arctic:

    During the first two weeks of July, ice extent declined at a rate of 132,000 square kilometers (51,000 square miles) per day. This was 61% faster than the average rate of decline over the period 1981 to 2010 of 82,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) per day. (source)

    The sea ice is not bouncing back each year as it would in a stable climate. If it were stable the monthly lines on the figure below would form concentric circles. We are now spiraling toward ice fee Arctic summers in the near future.

    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 24, 2013 - 9:52pm

    #45
    phil hecksel

    phil hecksel

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2010

    Posts: 139

    Adding to the complexity,

    Adding to the complexity, suspending that water vapor, will use up some of that excess energy, which in my uneducated opinion, will lead to higher propensity for larger storms.

    Which brings up another question, after 911, aircrafts were grounded.  Some post 911 environmental studies I've seen have suggested aircraft have a greater environmental impact then previously thought.  During those few days, it was suggested nights were cooler and days hotter with the clear skies.  I remember how blue the sky was, in that I hadn't remembered it being that blue before.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 24, 2013 - 10:25pm

    #46

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    Further Complexity II

    Phecksel,

    Something that attaches to Mark's point about the amount of Water Vapor per 1 degree celsius is that the atmosphere has standard rates of lapse (Adiabatic Lapse Rates) which at standard is 1 degrees celsius per every 100m or ~6 degree F per 1000'.

    This rate corresponds to atmospheric stability, and an atmosphere that warms with height will be more 'stable', leading to stratiform cloud formation, whereas cooling with height will lead to a more unstable or conditionally unstable atmosphere.

    Suspension of water vapor in and of itself won't actually lead to storms, unless there's a lifting mechanism (either terrain induced, or by way of surface confluence/upper level diffluence or thermal convection). In addition, there needs to be a mid level wind gradient to act as exhaust for any developing storm.

    So, in order to have any storm develop, you need Moisture, Instability, Lifting mechanism and Exhaust.
    More water vapor in the mid levels without very strong convection or exhaust is going to actually inhibit storm development (cyclogenesis) by creating mass over the updraft core of the storm, which actually would cause it to be choked and would eventually lead to a loss of development.

    So, surface based water vapor with strong winds and high temperatures are generally to blame. Warm (and therefore saturated) mid level atmosphere generally just leads to fair weather clouds. Updrafts are generally less dense (just like buoyancy) and then freeze as they reach the higher mid level and upper level atmosphere, which forces condesation and the exhaust mechanism allows them to develop vertically, while the water at higher elevations develops into clouds.

    As to severity, that's generally a measure of damaging winds and hail. Hail is the result of a strong updraft and a low freezing level (typically around 1000'). Winds can be caused by a number of things, but a strong thermal gradient is generally to blame.

    http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/

    Check that link for lots of good information for Meteorology. Jeff Haby has taught me a lot over the years.
    Cheers,

    Aaron

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jul 25, 2013 - 6:45pm

    #47
    jdye51

    jdye51

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 17 2011

    Posts: 151

    Check these out

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-and-species-extinction_b_3644578.html#es_share_ended

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-climate-change_n_3643917.html

    The first article talks about the coming extinction of the Iberian lynx as well as the increasing rate of extinction in general. The second article talks about the global economic impact of climate change.

    My last post on this thread was pretty dark. I know there are some who will disagree that things are all that bad. My concern is that, as the natural systems we rely on alter and fail, the effects will be unpredictable and may be beyond our ability to adapt. I just read a little on the permaculture thread here and saw that some people are noticing the need to adjust plantings because of different weather patterns brought on by the recent change in the jet stream. As we continue to pour excess carbon (and methane) into our atmosphere, the climate will become even more variable. Changes are occuring faster than was predicted with a .8 C increase. Some climate scientists are saying we could see an increase of 4-5 C by the end of the century. Even if it is less than that, it is entirely new territory for the flora and fauna on the planet. Adaptations that normally take millions of years would need to happen in decades.

    I find it hard to speak about these things. I struggle with whether to bring it up even here. No one wants to contemplate a future so radically different and hostile to life. It's an alarming picture based on all that I've read not only about the environment but the general state of things. Book after book, article after article highlight bits of the larger picture. When I connect those pieces together, what I see is that we are in deep trouble. Is it me? Am I overreacting? Have I put the pieces together incorrectly? Are things really as bad as they appear to be?

    My gut says yes, things are as bad as that or more. My intellect says there are so many parts to the whole, how can anyone really know? The right brain doesn't have language and communicates differently. Is it speaking to me with these strong feelings of urgency and alarm? Is what it says any less important to listen to?

    What does your gut say? Seriously. I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to PM me or write here.

    Thanks,

    Joyce

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 3:29am

    Reply to #47

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Check the gut but use the brain

    Joyce,I have read enough to know well the dark paths you may have been wandering. This like many things is just plain overwhelming when we consider it. How do you begin to contemplate changing everything about the way we live? There are so many things that may happen, how do we plan for them? We are left feeling dread like a child who just broke something at home, and is left waiting for Mom or Dad to come home and punish them.
    The climate changes that we face are hostile to the status quo of living organisms but not hostile to life, per se. Everything has to change, and a lot of species will suffer the consequences but big changes have happened several times before. Life is not in question, our current way of living is. We have no idea of what we have been messing with or the effect that it is already having in our lives but our fears can be as bad as our ignorance.
    Not knowing what will come is not the same as not being able to deal with it once it arrives. I agree with your gut, things are bad on many levels. This is why I am changing my life in many ways and trying to prepare my family to be more resilient to instability of any sort. Am I there? Not even close. Just trying to get a little closer each day.
    There are plenty of things in this world that you can't possibly contemplate dealing with (serious injury or illness, death of loved ones etc) but that you survive nonetheless. You would never choose to experience them but once you are faced with the situation, you just have to muddle through. Looking ahead and following your gut instinct that the future is not likely to be as rosy as we have been led to believe is good. It provides us with an opportunity to make changes and preparations that may shift the odds in our favor however slightly. We need to concentrate on what we can do, not so much on what we cannot control. We also need to work on our muddling skills!
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 5:50am

    #48

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    Dark Times Indeed

    Joyce,

    Like you, I find very little, in terms of science based information, to counter the tide of bad news about our environment and find very little comfort in how societies are dealing with that tide (because I see no effective actions). As Mark said, all most of us can do is inch ourselves and our families towards being in a better position to deal with whatever is coming. In the worst situation, we won't be able to deal with it but no-one knows how the future will pan out, so building in more self-reliance and resilience to your life still seems like a good idea to me.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 2:59pm

    #49

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    ...for two cents more...

    Just tossing my thoughts in on this…
    Echoing what Dr. Cochrane said, this process isn't going to snuff life as we know it. It's a trend that has developed more rapidly than it would have with growth alone, due to the *insane* amount of fossil fuels which allowed runaway population growth within our species.

    To be concerned for loss of human life at this point is almost futile, as it's a foregone conclusion. There's literally no way that this rate of growth can continue for much longer without some sort of radical innovation, discovery or development, and that seems increasingly unlikely, as the scientific community has high-graded most of the technology that has allowed our population to increase 'vaccus periculum'.

    So the question (for me) has shifted over the last few years from:
    "Should I worry about a collapse, uncertainty and a large scale loss of life/habitat?"

    To…
    "How can I best insulate my self, family, people and future generations from the impending Neo-Malthusian Catastrophe?"

    Does Climate Change influence this? You bet. It will undoubtably make growing seasons more challenging, make water cycles less predictable and droughts and the associated famines more regular. It's tantamount to a colony of bacteria infecting a host. When the host catches a fever, the bacterias' population levels drop to non-threatening levels and the host resumes normal function.

    We're just talking about a MUCH larger host, and a tremendously aggressive parasite.
    However, the "feast then famine" cycles that occur in nature (such as a whale carcass hitting the ocean floor, which stimulates an explosion of life, which dies off significantly when the carcass is consumed) apply to us as well, and the more rapidly we deplete our energy source (see: oil) the faster we will reduce our numbers.

    The mechanisms that I believe will impact us will be far more "immediate" than Climate Change. This equation has the potential for war on overwhelming proportions, civil strife and loss of life through disease, starvation and drought on a truly epic scale. Never before has mankind looked over the rim of such a steep cliff, and never before in such tremendous numbers. As space on that cliff face begins shrinking, lots of people will be pushed off. That's just biology, and history is very clear on what happens during periods of drastic shortage…

    Best thing we can do is size up the cliff from a distance and get as far from it as possible when the pushing starts.

    Cheers,

    Aaron

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 4:44pm

    Reply to #49

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Cause and geopolitical effect

    Aaron,Ultimately it won't matter what provides the spark but climate change keeps adding fuel to the potential fires for war all over the world. Whether through food insecurity and rising prices, water availability, floods, or rising sea levels the stress levels are increasing year by year. Perhaps some future historian will be able to postulate on the ultimate place of climate change in the geopolitical struggles of this century but there is a lot of thought going into this issue for national and global security right now.
    Climate change is no longer the sole province of scientists or environmental activists. What is the top security issue in the Pacific theater? North Korea? China? This year the commander of U.S. forces Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III cited climate change as being the top threat.

    Commander of U.S. Forces Pacific: Climate change is top threat
    Locklear commented that “People are surprised sometimes” that he highlights climate change — despite an ability to discuss a wide-range of threats, from cyber-war to the North Koreans.  However, it is the risks — from natural disasters to long-term sea-level rise threats to Pacific nations that has his deepest attention.

    “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

    Climate Change merits national security — military — attention for very pragmatic reasons.

    The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

    And, Admiral Locklear is now — almost certainly with Joint Chiefs of Staff and Office of Secretary of Defense knowledge and support — taking this up seriously with other nations.

    “We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’

    Admiral Locklear is hardly alone in his thinking. This has been increasingly raised in a national security context in the U.S.

    U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears
    In 2007, CNA, a Pentagon-funded think tank that conducts in-depth research and analysis, released a report from a panel of retired senior military officers and national security experts who predicted that extreme weather events prompted by climate shifts could disrupt the U.S. way of life and cause already weak governments to fall, particularly in many Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations where marginal living standards already exist.

    Since this came out in 2007, it proved rather prescient " given the subsequent 'Arab Spring' which was sparked by rising food prices. Why did they happen? Many reasons, climate changes being a significant element among them.
    Then you have the statements by former deputy secretary of defense Sherri Goodman and retired Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Gordon Sullivan.

    Climate change is ‘threat multiplier’
    While the fact of climate change might be fodder for political debate, it is widely accepted across the national security community, which focuses keenly on reducing risk and preserving freedom. The CNA Military Advisory Board — a panel of our nation’s highest-ranking retired military leaders — has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier” because it can exacerbate political instability in the world’s most dangerous regions. Droughts, floods, food and water shortages and extreme weather can uproot communities, cause humanitarian crises and increase the chances of armed conflict. We believe these conditions make it more likely that U.S. troops will be sent into harm’s way — and the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Intelligence Estimates and the National Security Strategy agree.
    We saw the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy — families without water, power and shelter. Superimpose on that kind of situation an already fragile political state, and you have a recipe for failed states and civil war. This is what the U.S. military is bracing for. That is why we are already actively engaged in planning against it. Just as sensible people plan ahead to minimize the damage from weather disasters, our nation must take precautions to reduce the risks of climate change.

    The list goes on but you get the picture.
    We often think of conflicts such as Israel and Syria or India and Pakistan in terms of religious or social conflict terms but they are largely resource driven conflicts. The resource in both cases being water. With populations rising and water availability decreasing in these regions we have a recipe for all sorts of unpleasantness.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 5:26pm

    #50

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    Mark,  Most definitely.

    Mark, 

    Most definitely. That's what makes this situation special, in terms of it's overall potential. 
    We're dealing with a trifecta of:
    1. A global economy based entirely on the consumption of oil.
    2. A global environment heavily impacted by the growth and continued use of population and oil.
    3. A global socio-economic landscape that requires that cheap oil is continually available, used and in constant demand. 

    It's a "checkmate" in the style of our financial structure. It's also amazing that we've built this right into the very foundation of our society… a system that is forced to grow and consume more, struggling against a resource who's supply doesn't regenerate fast enough to keep pace with demand and an environment that can't tolerate its excessive use. 

    I view the climate changes as the backdrop on which all other aspects and components of a systemic failure exist. It is the warning gauge that warns us that whatever's going on is causing a problem. 

    The Navy in particular (and I hate giving them credit) is light years ahead of the other branches of service and government with regards to resource depletion and peak oil. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're already tracking AGW as a serious concern, and overall strategic net loss.

    The quote from the "threat multiplier" article here:
    "We saw the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy — families without water, power and shelter. Superimpose on that kind of situation an already fragile political state, and you have a recipe for failed states and civil war. This is what the U.S. military is bracing for. That is why we are already actively engaged in planning against it. Just as sensible people plan ahead to minimize the damage from weather disasters, our nation must take precautions to reduce the risks of climate change."

    Is *exactly* why I feel like the academic banter is a waste of time. It's a threat.
    Asking "How much of a threat?" is a responsible academic and theoretical exercise, but it's not what you ask when the threat is pounding your head into the tarmac. Finding a way to avoid, or minimize the damages is where we should be, and I for one, don't see any good reason not to maintain our habitat. That's just common sense (or what passed for common sense when I was a kid).

    Cheers,

    Aaron

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 6:15pm

    #51
    yogiismyhero

    yogiismyhero

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 28 2013

    Posts: 174

    As it was in the beginning it forever shall be...With Man or...

    …without.

    http://www.yellowstone.ws/ywomovie.mov

    Just the way it is. Mother Earth, glorious.

    Peace

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 7:17pm

    Reply to #51
    Cornelius999

    Cornelius999

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 17 2008

    Posts: 362

    Climate Change

    Thanks for all the information,worrying as it is, Mark and for being so honest about the gravity of the situation.  As you say, we may surprise ourselves at how good we may become at muddlying along. Just because the big picture isn't good, doesnt mean the local situation can't be meaningful and even rewarding.Declan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 7:38pm

    #52
    jdye51

    jdye51

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 17 2011

    Posts: 151

    Thanks

    I appreciate the thoughtful replies to my post #74. So our guts agree that the future is unpredicatable but what we can see looks very bad. And that the thing to do is to prepare in the hope that our plans will at least give us a slight edge as things break down. More chaos everywhere as the changes compile. As Mark points out, more wars are no doubt ahead as competition for scarce resources intensifies. We're already seeing it happening. I'm sure the US is positioning itself to be on the "winning" side with our huge military presence on bases throughout the world. At least while there is affordable oil to be had. The sheer cost of moving 80% of the world population away from the coasts is difficult to imagine. Move where? How long would it take? The mind boggles.

    I have no doubt life will go on with or without us, just not the life we know and have adapted to. The tragedy is that we are bringing this on ourselves. A silver lining is the communty to be found here.smiley

    Thanks, my friends.

    Joyce

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - 11:58pm

    #53

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    Climate Change the Top Threat

    Thanks, Mark, for those quotes from the military about climate change being the top threat. If you add the other environmental stresses, it would not surprise me if environmental problems (other than resource shortages) hit most people before financial problems, directly or indirectly. I'm amazed at human abilities to extend and pretend, on the financial and economic front. But when it come to the environment, there are real limits that can't be overcome through ingenuity.

    Back to climate change, with the concentration of greenhouse gases now well past the notional target of 450 ppm CO2 equivalent we are now guaranteed to get dangerous climate change. It kind of makes apparent attempts to get agreements of carbon emission reductions seem rather pointless; we're past that now and we now need adaptation strategies and drastic mitigation.

    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 12:08am

    #54

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The Invisible Idiot.

    Radio Australia Saturday AM (Podcast yet to be delivered) said that Australia's carbon output is no longer increasing and the effect of the Carbon Tax is to force business to look at the cost of energy.

    This has forced them to increase their profit margins.

    So much for the all-knowing "Invisible Hand" of the market.

    But do not dispair all you lovers of carbon. Rudd, in his desperate grab for power, is about to discard the Carbon Tax. So I guess business managers can go back to sleep. When things go bad they can always blame External Factors. "China dunnit" or "It's the Unions" or .   .   . whatever.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 1:37am

    #55

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Conversations Beneath a Skull.

    Some decisions that are a no-brainer that company Invisible Idiots can make to increase their profit margin. (And decrease their carbon output). Off the top of my head over a cup of Green coffee.

    Trucking companies can make use of underutilised rail lines. The rigs are diesel-electric and have rail-car wheels fitted. A string of rigs is assembled, their electricity coupled and when traffic controller says "Go" the front driver takes the string down the line.

    Voila- A Diesel-Electric loco. The rest of the drivers get paid for doing nothing. Steel on steel is much more energy efficient than rubber on road; Electricity means that acceleration and deceleration are from stored energy; a string means that wind resistence is decreased; rested drivers means less accidents.

    When the string arrives at it's destination, the drivers wake up and have to take their rigs to the next destination, customer or rail line.

    But wait! What happens if somebody wants to leave the string before they get to point B? I will leave that problem for your homework.

    Manufacturing Businesses and Big Malls. Over here in Perth the Utility Invisible Idiots fought tooth and nail to stop people going off-grid. But people went off-grid anyway. In their thousands. There are photocells on roofs all over town. Excess power is sold for credit to the Utilities.

    The result? In the miday heat the photocells were putting out maximum energy. Just when it was needed meaning that the Utilities did not have to design their generation capacity for the peaks. The Utilities now cannot operate without the back-up of the photo-cells.

    Let us look under the bonnet of an Invisible Idiot's mind. In this case he is the manager of a large roof.

    "Hmm. My solar cells on my house save me money. If I put solar cells on the big roof the same phenomenon will happen."

    "But what happens if something goes wrong?" "I lose my job!" "Hmm. It is only shareholder money. And besides I can always blame China if we don't make a profit."

    "But what about our company Green washing?. I had better put a few tokens on the roof to appease the silly customer."

    But with a Carbon Tax the conversation in his head is totaly different. He is forced to make a profit. If not, he can always fall back on blaming the Unions for demanding disposable income.

    The coffe is finished.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 4:36am

    Reply to #55

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    String theory

    Arthur,Your assignment

    But wait! What happens if somebody wants to leave the string before they get to point B? I will leave that problem for your homework.

    Couple your  vehicles in order such that the first to get off is at the end of the string and so on. Decouple vehicles as needed while passing individual stops leaving the front of the string traveking at max velocity. The string shortens as it travels but never needs to slow until the last vehicle arrives at your point B.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 5:26am

    #56
    Petey1

    Petey1

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 13 2012

    Posts: 55

    A little humor

    Replace up there with Earth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 9:21am

    Reply to #11

    scribe

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 19 2011

    Posts: 25

    This Podcast was a long time coming...

    This Podcast was a long time coming…

    A long, loooooooooong time coming. I nearly died waiting.
    But better late than never, eh?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 10:45am

    Reply to #30

    billhopen

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 10 2009

    Posts: 7

    compressed nat gas

    I forget the figure, but it was dramatic, between 25%-50% of the /btu value of natgas is lost liquifying it. I don't know about compressing gas to several thousand PSI but that wastes a substantial energy input….is there anyway to use that energy?, to harvest the spring-bound energy in the compressed gas to replace the "compression  stroke"  which robs energy output in the conventional internal combustion engine? or use hi effeciency turbine?  seems if one used off-peak excess electricity  and stored it as compressed air energy in a tank, and accompanied the air tank with a tank of compressed gas, the compression stroke could be eliminated totally, and replaced by an energy boosing pre ignition pressure build adding/inputting energy into the cylinder engine.  the loss of energy in the compression stroke is huge, and subtracts from total output, it also needs a more complicated of valve train and camshafts robbing further effeciency, as well as decressing cylce from 4 cycles with one power stroke, to two cycles 
    Is there an engineer in the house?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 12:23pm

    #57

    billhopen

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 10 2009

    Posts: 7

    Mark Cochrane's podcast with CM

    Mark C, Thanks for an authoritative, beautifully clear, well explained podcast I can e-mail to friends and family that just don't get it yet.

    I have questions about my local geographic area (central WV 1000ft elevation) and how comparitively stable my local climate will be.  What changes am I to expect and prepare for…wetter? more dry? etc   

    Generally I agree the changes seem to be greater variance in both directions, but I wonder if there is a trend predictable, or whether I should consider moving to a better, more stable environment.  For sure I'm not in the sea-rise zone,  nor am I on a stream runoff area prone to flooding in high precipitation, but I worry more about drought/wind/forest fires or 40 below winters which would cause me to move.    Big Wind storms are ok and increased rain/snow is fine, but is this place more likely to be a super high variation(unstable)zone? -thats my question….is there a place to research that?.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jul 27, 2013 - 10:40pm

    #58

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    Energy Brake

    If life has evolved to pass genes long term, then given its track record there are most likely built-in brakes.  For example, if cloud formation increases past a tipping point and holds (water holds heat well) what does that imply for crop yield?  If much less demand for food (population die off etc) then less burning of fossil fuels.   Also, as regards the 1% of sun energy for plant life does that include the sun energy that goes into supporting the environment to grow?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 28, 2013 - 1:10am

    Reply to #2

    turnipseed

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 11 2009

    Posts: 1

    Graph

    This graph originally comes from a presentation by Lord Christopher Monckton. I don't know where you got this graph from, but you should always list your source for information like this so others can check it out.Lord Monckton is one of the superstars among global warming skeptics. You can find many of his presentations on You Tube. He is an excellant speaker, and if you don't know much aboudt AGW, he is very convincing. If you do have a backgroud in climatology, you'll find there is much in Lord Monckton's lectures that is questionable. However, you should not take my word for it. For critics, listen to John Abraham, Univ. of St Thomas (very detailed and well documented) or potholder54 (more entertaining). And you should also check out Lord Monckton's reply to his critics. Then make up your own mind.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 28, 2013 - 6:28am

    Reply to #57

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Your neck of the woods

    Billhopen,You are asking the $64 trillion question (inflation!), what is happening and will happen where I live? What is happening is defined but what will happen is a tenuous subject. Global models do not necessarily get local or even regional climate correct. There are people trying to sort out which models perform best at different locations but even with that they need to be used to driver regional climate models with statistical or dynamical downscaling for real clarity. These things are being done but the coverage is spotty and depends on individual research projects at this point.
    I certainly am no expert in your local climate but I can provide some input. You can check with your state climatologist (link) for what has been changing more certainly with a likely emphasis on agricultural impacts.
    One of the things I am doing is looking at the last 120 years of weather observations around the US to see what has changed. It's a work in progress but since I just got the materials from one of my post docs I'll tell you what we see for West Virginia. These are seasonal and monthly data so daily extremes may vary within these values substantially. Also, realize that I am eyeballing a lot of national maps that don't have state boundaries on them so this is crude reporting!
    For West Virginia:
    Wetter annually, but averaging less than 100mm additional. Wetter Junes, Drier Augusts, Wetter Autumns, especially in October
    In terms of max daily temperatures. Warmer in March average about 1C. Increasing variability of August temperatures. Septembers cooler but Novembers warmer by 1 C. Warmer winters in all months, especially February >1C. Decembers particularly variable.
    In terms of minimum daily temperatures, mildly warmer Springs, regionwide warmer Summer nights, moreso June and July. Warmer Winters, strongest in February. September and February more variable within the months.
    There is nothing particularly concerning about the climate variations in your location apparent. Wind changes are a big unknown at this point. I do not know of any vetted work on this question. It is very important for a number of reasons but it is likely to be the number one variable in the future severity of wildfires. Mayhap Aaron can speak to the weather aspects better.
    I believe that your location is mixed broadleaved hardwoods so fire is not so much of an issue as in the west and coniferous forests. Fires that do occur should stay as surface fires in the leaf litter unless conditions truly become exceptional. In the last 20 years there have been no large wildfires (>500 acres) in your region as far as I know and I have been looking for all of them across the US!
    I hope this is helpful.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 28, 2013 - 8:45am

    #59

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Lisa Ann Gershwin Loves Jellyfish.

     She is an expert. She has a vision of the coming state of the oceans that will have you rolling in the isles.

    ABC Radio.

    My understanding is that there is a constant war between jellyfish and pelagic fish. Medusa eat small fish and big fish eat Jellyfish.

    Jellyfish have a calorific value of 2J per Kg. That is a tad above the energy of a glass of water.

    Here Tierney talks about a Jellyfish predator. We had better start a breeding program and protect their young.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 28, 2013 - 9:11am

    Reply to #59

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    Ocean Apocalypse

    At least someone can get excited about the rise of slime, Arthur!She mentions Jeremy Jackson. Here he is with a doom laden description of the situation in the oceans:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMN3dTvrwY
    Tony

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 29, 2013 - 10:54am

    #60

    Nichoman

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2008

    Posts: 140

    Carbon Dioxide And Ignorance

    Folks:

     

    The oldies here may remember me…not going to get in the endless conversations and diatribe about Climate Change (CC) or AGW.  I've outlined many times years ago as to why.

    For the more recent folks here at this site…been involved with this subject to varying degrees (CC/AGW) since the 1980s.

    As I've stated before here…Weather and Climate (including CO2) is much, much more dynamic (i.e. changing).

    Example:  Let's use data…not opinion.  The image below are some real time observations from the Earth System Research Laboratory (ERSL) Tall Tower in Eastern Iowa (about 40 miles away from where I live and work).

    CO2…because it is heavier than air (see periodic table) collects near the ground…often the concentrations go well over 500 PPM as is shown below.  The 520 PPM value is still roughly 100 feet above the ground…local techniques are the value of CO2 near the ground is likely another 10-20+ percent higher depending on the morning and strength of the inversion near sunrise.  Values over 1000 PPM are not that uncommon.  This site often goes well above 600 PPM.  The highest values occur in warm season…not cold…biosphere and CO2 are not independent and still not fully understood as the reason at this particular site.   Leave it at that.

    Understand there are processes and physics that are not being discussed.   Don't focus on just on the 400 PPM value.   My point…beware of using simple averages or parameters of physics on this issue.

    Final point…as I've stated before…"The truth has no side…and always bring us together".

    All the Best to all…

     

    Nichoman

    Atmospheric Scientist

     

    "Oh Creator, please provide the STRENGTH and WISDOM to see things as they are…not the way I wish or believe them to be"

                                                                               –Leonardo Da Vinci

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 29, 2013 - 5:59pm

    #61

    kleymo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 28 2012

    Posts: 14

    parallels with Permian extinction

    Mark,

    At the AoL conference, I asked about parallels with the Permian extinction. You said that had to do with the oceans. That was not a venue for more detailed discussion, and so I did not follow up. Could you talk about that a bit for us?

     

    I had thought we had quite a bit to learn about our predicament from the Permian extinction. This fairly recent NYT article talks about that a bit, too (yeah, not the most scientific source).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Thanks,

    Hoyte King

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jul 29, 2013 - 6:03pm

    #62
    Hooleyman

    Hooleyman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 07 2008

    Posts: 6

    Economic Externalities

    For all those who have "economist" friends who think your concern for dwindling natural resourses or the environment in general is adorable please share this link below with them. It might bounce off their heads due to our human confirmation bias, but it's worth a try. westcoastjan mentioned David Suzuki so I couldn't help myself.

    http://youtu.be/Se55CCdfaOA

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jul 30, 2013 - 5:50pm

    Reply to #61

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Permian parallels

    Hoyte,Thank you the question.
    For those who do not know, the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event, otherwise know as the Great Dying was the biggest reset that life on this planet has experienced with as much as 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates winking out of existence. It was also the only extinction event to ever make a serious dent in insect diversity. The K-T dinosaur killing asteroid gets all of the press for extinction events but it wasn't in the same league as the end of the Permian. Diversity took 10-15 million years to reestablish once conditions became more clement for life.
    So what happened? It is still an open question because it occurred more than 252 million years ago but we do know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere went up by about 2,000ppm (we have raised things by 120ppm in the last 150 years) so it is tempting to correlate that event with what we are currently doing to the planet. Ocean surface waters seem to have become warm and stratified deserts (little mixing with deep nutrient rich waters), while the deep oceans became stagnant and anoxic. Add in the fact that the world was in a cooler phase (like now) and transitioned back into a very warm phase and you have the stuff of nightmares.
    Despite this, there are a number of caveats needed before drawing strong parallels between then and now.
    1. Although we call it an extinction 'event', this was a very long event. Depending how you define it, the P-Tr extinction event took between 200,000 and 2+ million years to play out, with three to five extinction peaks during that period. To put that in context, our species, Homo sapiens sapiens has only existed for about 200,000 years.
    2. The world was a very different place then with all of the Earth's continents globbed together into the super continent Pangaea (see image).

    3. People always seem to like very clear black and white simple cause and effect concepts but life if often more nuanced than this. The proposed causes of the P-Tr even have varied with several causes suggested. The more likely explanation is that there were several causes that interacted synergistically such that each cause made the next more severe in its impact. Themassive volcanic eruptions of the Siberian Traps that originally covered an area 3.5 times the size of western Europe occurred at this time and would have emitted lots of carbon dioxide. This may also have set off a slow chain of events from burning coal seams unfortunately located within the Siberian traps to massive eruptions from the sea floor methane clathrates as the oceans warmed causing further greenhouse gas warming. For good measure, one or more massive asteroid strikes also bedeviled life. It was a challenging time for life and lots of species didn't make but this opened up space for a lot of evolutionary radiation of new species from among the survivors.

    The take home message is that every stress placed upon life makes in more vulnerable to other unforeseen events, much like stress makes all of us more susceptible to disease and accidents. What we are currently doing is not on par with the P-Tr event, at least not yet. The ongoing rate of extinctions due to human activities is right up there with  other mass extinctions but we need to keep it up for another 240-540 years (source) to break into the top five of all extinction events (not something we should definitely not be trying to achieve!). Regardless, we are placing life in a much more vulnerable position for extinction from an asteroid impact or any other climate surprise that comes along. We are steadily mining the resiliency of global ecosystems at our peril. Driving species to functional if not total extinction and the demolition of whole ecosystems is the quivalent of removing structural supports from within your own home. You can get away with it for a while but eventually the house comes down on your head. If people are interested in the Permian-Triassic extinction event, there are a couple of good overviews of the ideas/science (Wikipedia, NSF).
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 31, 2013 - 5:21am

    Reply to #60

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 1189

    Intriguing

    Nichoman,That graph that you present is interesting. I have seen tall tower data before but generally the upper elevation values are more stable while the lower levels see large diurnal and seasonal fluctuations.
    The main fluctuations should tie to vegetation respiration with drawdowns during the photoperiod. Depending on the footprint, traffic in general will also influence the signal. You are exactly right about the amount of dynamics in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases. When looking down through the entire atmosphere the variations for the mid troposphere are noticeable but not huge.

    Closer to the ground though the variability you show should lead to an interesting amount of day to day and location to location variance in effects. I wonder about the degree to which this will affect Regional Climate Model (RCM) projections and if it also impacts statistical and dynamical downscaling efforts? The OCO-2 satellite data should help start to define the global CO2 spatio-temporal dynamics after next year's launch (hopefully with a better outcome than the OCO satellite).
    Methane is less well mixed than CO2, so there is even more spatial and temporal variation in effects.

    The following animation provides a sense of how much variability there is through the seasons. Notice how the Himalayas are an island of low methane within a sea of surrounding human activity.

    This gives a sense too of why batting around numbers like warming the planet by and 'average' of 2 C (or any other number) really tells you very little about how the impacts will play out locally.
    Mark

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jul 31, 2013 - 8:11pm

    Reply to #60

    Nichoman

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2008

    Posts: 140

    Scientific Limitations

    Thanks for the comments.The challenges are ensuring we grasp and properly apply the capabilities and limitations of each tool available in this, but in all the issues we deal with.
    Satellite Observations.
    Remote Sensing have inherent limitations as they are based on what we describe as weighting functions, of Radiative Transfer (RT) Theory.  Hence, your not getting a deterministic value but closer to a mean.  The positive is their areal coverage.  The negative, because of the mathmatics, is the data is not fully accurate, plus these errors increase with energy "differentials"…also variances from the mean normal datasets (back to key principles we use in radiant energy).  Work with them each day in numerous atmospheric applications. Excellent example are Satellite derived atmosphere soundings and then comparing them to in situ observations, most commonly…rawinsondes. This is one of the projects I've been working on for a long, long time. 
    In a prior life, worked with developing requirements for the next generation of meteorological satellites for the late 1990s through the 2010 time period.  These experiences (plus numerous other areas) have led to the observation we tend to overstate what we can do more often than not.   Actually in every aspect of science and new technologies.
    Modeling.
    In our profession, this is called Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP).   There are many serious issues that are limiting us because of flaws in transparency and accountabiity.   Please consider the governments are part of the problem.  The scientific method is not being properly followed in this arena. Sadly, too many key decision-makers don't fully grasp this.  Seen now trillions of dollars wasted over the decades.   We all lose.
    As a government employee, it is sad, as everyone I know and have ever worked with (in and out of government) wants to solve things.
    Questions this individual asks everyday…

    Are we each making things better or worse?  
    Is the government also part of the problem?
    How do we start addressing this in a more constructive manner?

    Oh well.  Maybe we some day we will get back closer to the truth.   After 4 decades though…as a pragmetist, it will take something non-routine.  These are the areas migrated to over the past several years. 
    Kind Regards,
     
    Nichoman
     
     
     
     
     
       
     
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 03, 2013 - 4:22am

    #63
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    David Suzuki

    Thanks Hooleyman for posting for all to see.  David is so right, economics in these times is not only not a science, its a form of mental illness.  We have turned into a culture of sociopaths so disconnected from our own souls and the soul of the planet that we have become suicidal as a species, externalities indeed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Aug 03, 2013 - 5:11am

    Reply to #63

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Mal-education Malady.

    JayHanson points out that we are designed to conceal the truth from ourselves in order to decieve our fellow man.He further points out that as hard as it is to learn something new, it is twice as hard to unlearn mal-education. Economist are mal-educated high priests. They need to be called out by their peers. Professor Steve Keen is trying to do just that, but I worry that his models are also not useful.
    So what can we offer as a solution in the light of the two above models? I think that we need to expose our real nature to ourselves from an early age.
    Here is a good place to start.
    It looks as though someone is already doing the experiment.
    another view
     

    Obviously a work in progress. It will need to be back bred with the ape a few times. Note the forehands.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments