climate change

On a recent Diane Rehm Show focused on the impacts of approaching Climate Change, the host was driven to ask "Why?" Why does a certain subset of individuals (and scientists) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that atmospheric carbon levels have surpassed the danger point and are affecting climate on a global scale?

The answer to that question doesn't lie in the scientific data, it's in our heads. Both psychological and sociological triggers come into play, and we'll take a look at each.

The N&O's excellent coverage.

In September of 2009, just after back to back earthquakes in Samoa and Indonesia, I wrote an article entitled "Climate Change: A whole lot of shaking going on" where scientists have theorized that earthquakes are increasing due to an unlikely cause: Climate Change.

The theory is that while earthquakes on different tectonic plates do not cause others to occur, for instance the Samoan and Indonesian quakes happened within one day of each other, they can be correlated to other quakes and seismic activity, specifically to 'glacial quakes' caused by fast melting and moving multi-ton glaciers on Greenland.

It ain't just a theory, it's happening now:

Water is rising three times faster on the N.C. coast than it did a century ago as warming oceans expand and land ice melts, recent research has found. It's the beginning of what a N.C. science panel expects will be a 1-meter increase by 2100.

Storms, Young said, are "the hammer" of rising seas. As storm surges pound ashore on a higher base of water, their damage multiplies. The Outer Banks, some scientists predict, could disintegrate into a string of high spots - Avon, Buxton, Ocracoke - reachable only by boat.

And almost completely ignored by the media is the continued warming of the 21st Century:

Skeptics and optimists could both be wrong:

In fact, as Dr. Alley reminds anyone who will listen, and as he recently told a Congressional committee, the estimate of 5 or 6 degrees is actually mildly optimistic. Computer programs used to forecast future climate show it as the most likely outcome from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but those programs also show substantial probabilities that the warming will be much greater.

The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.

Well over half the species on our planet would be exctinct by that time, so they won't be around to "recognize" anything.

World Meteorological Organization shouts warning:

“Greenhouse gas concentrations have reached record levels despite the economic slowdown. They would have been even higher without the international action taken to reduce them,” said WMO Secretary-General Mr Michel Jarraud. “In addition, potential methane release from northern permafrost, and wetlands, under future climate change is of great concern and is becoming a focus of intensive research and observations.”

Unfortunately, due to the recent election's shift to the Right, the U.S. will probably be even less likely to become a strong partner (much less leader) in the global effort to reverse these trends.

There's broad agreement among scientists nowadays that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activities like burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

For example, a survey by university researchers published last year in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, found that 90 percent of earth scientists agree that mean global temperatures have generally risen since the 1800s, and 82 percent think human activity contributes significantly. As respondents' level of specialization in climate science increased, so did their confidence in human-caused global warming, with climatologists who actively work on climate change agreeing most strongly. That broad agreement is why prestigious scientific organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society and the National Academy of Sciences all refer to a climate science "consensus."

Maybe you should look in the mirror for your answers:

"They promised to support candidates who took a tough vote for climate change. Where are they? Where's the cavalry?" asked one Democratic Party official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly.

At a private meeting of congressional Democrats last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) discussed the funding disparity between Republican-backed groups and those who had been expected to help Democrats. One participant said Pelosi told her fellow Democrats that she had asked environmental leaders, "Where are you guys?"

Here's the thing, Nancy: If you can't exert enough influence over your colleagues in the Senate to complete the work you've started in the House, it makes that work appear inconsequential. That may be unfair, but there it is.

Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.