Commentary
A Republican meteorologist looks at climate change
By Paul Douglas
Paul Douglas, a Minnesota meteorologist and author, writes a regular weather feature in the Star Tribune. This article first appeared Thursday on the Huffington Post.
I'm going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I'm a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I'm a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I'm staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you're not imagining it: we've clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern.
To complicate matters I'm in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up. It's ironic. The root of the word conservative is "conserve". A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly "global warming alarmists" are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.
Weather 2.0.: "It's a new atmosphere floating overhead."
These are the Dog Days of March. Ham Weather reports 5,299 records in the last seven days — some towns 20 to 35 degrees warmer than average; off-the-scale, freakishly warm. 17,360 records since March 1. Sixteen times more warm records than cold records since March 1. The scope, intensity and duration of this early heat wave are historic and unprecedented. And yes, climate change is probably a contributing factor. "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." 129,404 weather records in one year, nationwide? You can't point to any one weather extreme and say "that's climate change". But a warmer, wetter atmosphere loads the dice, increasing the potential for historic spikes in temperature and more frequent and bizarre weather extremes.
You can't prove that any one of Barry Bond's 762 home runs was sparked by (alleged) steroid use. But it did increase his "base state", raising the overall odds of hitting a home run. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, more fuel for floods, while increased evaporation pushes other regions into drought.
Here's what I suspect: the patient is running a slight fever. Symptoms include violent tornado sneezes, severe sniffles of flooding and raging rashes of jaw-dropping warmth. It's 85 in March. What will July bring? It's as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, clicked America's seasons on fast-forward, turning the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10. This isn't even close to being "normal". Weather Underground's Dr. Jeff Masters put it best: "This is not the atmosphere I grew up with."
Some TV meteorologists, professionals skilled at predicting short-term weather, are still in denial. Why? Some don't like being upstaged by climate scientists. We've all been burned by weather models, and some (mistakenly) apply the same suspicion to climate simulations. Others can't or won't take the time to dig into the climate science.
"It's all political," one local TV weather friend told me recently. No, it's science. But we've turned it into a political football, a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. Weather and climate are flip-sides of the same coin; you can't talk about one without understanding the other.
Acknowledging that the atmosphere is warming doesn't make you a liberal.
My climate epiphany wasn't overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-'90s I noticed startling changes in the weather floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change — along with 97 percent of published, peer-reviewed Ph.D.s, who link a 40 percent spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.
Bill O'Reilly, whom I respect, talks of a "no-spin zone." Yet today there's still a very concerted, well-funded effort to spin climate science. Some companies, institutes and think tanks are cherry-picking data, planting dubious seeds of doubt, arming professional deniers, scientists-for-hire and skeptical bloggers with the ammunition necessary to keep climate confusion alive. It's the "you can't prove smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer!" argument, times 100, with many of the same players. Amazing.
Schopenhauer said "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident." We are now well into Stage 2. It's getting bloody out there. Climate scientists are receiving death threats and many Americans don't know what to believe. Some turn to talk radio or denial blogs for their climate information. No wonder they're confused.
"Actions have consequences." We are accountable.
Trust your gut — and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about "insuring more fat government research grants." I have yet to find a climate scientist in the "1 Percent", driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today.
What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They're coming true, one after another — and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years in a row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either The Mother of All Coincidences — or the trends are real.
My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and "actions have consequences." Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually.
To pretend this isn't having any effect on the 12-mile-thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences — where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.
In 2007, before it became fashionable to bash climate science, I had the honor of welcoming Iraqi war veterans back to Minnesota for a banquet. The keynote speaker was my personal hero, Sen. John McCain. At dinner I asked him, "is it possible all this warm, freakish weather is one great big, cosmic coincidence?" He rolled his eyes, smiled and said "Paul, I just returned from the Yukon. The Chief Elder of a local village presented me with a 4,000 year old tomahawk that had just melted from the permafrost. The short answer? No."
How did we get from there — to here, with many in my party in perpetual denial? Is it still Al Gore? Fear of a government land-grab? My party needs to step up and become part of the solution, which — later this century — will probably generate more jobs, growth and GDP than legacy, carbon-based industries. I just hope our grandkids aren't having the same "debate" about the science.
"You're obsessing," my dear wife of 28 years complained recently. "People don't like having this rammed down their throats." Fair enough. I'm genuinely concerned, because I'm in touch with America's leading climate scientists. They are beyond concerned; bordering on apoplectic. We fiddle while Rome burns.
Biblical scripture: "We are here to manage God's property."
I'm a Christian, and I can't understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn't that the definition of greed?
In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, "Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God's property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship." Future generations will hold us responsible for today's decisions.
I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil, right? Many in my party have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the '60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers?
There's a palpable fear that Big Government will ultimately prevent the energy industry from extracting (and burning) trillions of dollars of carbon still in the ground; the fuel we think we need to keep America competitive, growing and healthy.
Proven U.S. reserves of carbon-based fuels are estimated to be 586 GtCO2, according to the Congressional Research Service. Think Progress's Brad Johnson calculates America has roughly $10 trillion worth of carbon resources still left in the ground (coal, gas and oil).
"If we are to avoid the catastrophes associated with greater than 2 C warming, sovereign states and public corporations must strand 80 percent of proven global carbon reserves, a loss exceeding $20 trillion," he said in an e-mail.
This is what the fight is about. Big Energy wants to keep us addicted to carbon-based fuels indefinitely; shareholders want to keep the money spigot flowing, and lock in future profits. Surprised? Me neither. But in business, as in life, you hedge your bets. We can slowly, methodically, reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels, while investing in carbon-clean alternatives. That doesn't mean government picks winners. That's anathema to free enterprise.
Climate change: The ultimate test of capitalism. "Let the markets work."
I'm a hopeless serial entrepreneur. The eight Minnesota companies I've created ultimately employed a couple hundred professionals. Where others see chronic problems I see opportunity. One of my companies is Smart Energy, with a new level of wind forecast accuracy for global wind farms.
Last summer, in response to the most severe two years since 1816, my partners and I launched a new, national cable weather channel ("WeatherNation Television") — to keep Americans updated with 24/7 storm reports. "Global Weirding" has arrived. Why bother? Because it's the right thing to do. And because going green will generate green. As in profits.
We won't drill our way out of this challenge; we'll innovate our way into a new, lower-carbon energy paradigm. Something we're pretty good at. We should take another look at newer, safer forms of carbon-free nuclear energy. The Chinese are doing some things with molten salts and thorium. "Fast neutron" reactors burn "waste" and it burns up the resultant plutonium, eliminating the so-called terrorist effect, said Don Shelby, former WCCO-TV anchor and energy reporter.
"If the U.S. would allow some reprocessing and enrichment, you could put all of the nuclear waste of the country in a shoebox and never dig another ounce of uranium for 100 years. But before nuclear energy can be considered viable we have to solve the waste problem," he added.
I was 30 miles downwind of Three Mile Island the day we had a near-meltdown in 1979. My thinking has evolved since — there's probably a place for (safe) nuclear power.
Amazingly, America already has the technology and creative minds necessary to ensure future growth and more jobs, without treating Earth like a battered ATM card. We can tackle this problem, like we've tackled every other problem in our nation's history.
But do we have the political will? Washington D.C. is broken, utterly incapable of dealing with long-term threats. Compromise is seen as weakness; our natural resources put at risk by political paralysis.
Will getting serious about climate change require a third political party: a pro-jobs, pro-clean-energy Common Sense Moderate Middle — to prove that America can move forward and thrive, without trashing the land and air we value? Perhaps. Will it take a series of climate catastrophes to shake some of us out of our perpetual-denial-bubble? I hope not.
The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It's not your grandfather's weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don't want to believe thousands of climate scientists — at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with more frequent and intense rains.
For evidence of climate change don't look at your back yard thermometer. That's weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren't there a generation ago.
This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grand kids will ask, "What did you know...when...and what did you do to help?"
We've been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won't happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I'm no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.
"The mother of all opportunities:" Turning America into the Silicon Valley of clean energy.
We can figure this out. Frankly, we won't have a choice. But I'm a naive optimist. We can reinvent America, leaving us more competitive in the 21st century, launching thousands of new, carbon-free energy companies — supplementing, and someday surpassing anything we can expeditiously suck out of the ground and burn, accelerating an already-warming planet. We won't have to bury our heads in Saudi sand indefinitely — we'll never "frack" our way to a sustainable future.
It's time for a New Energy Paradigm. There's no silver bullet. But there's plenty of (green) buckshot, if we aim high and point America in the right direction. Keep drilling, but have a Plan B, C and D. We need real leadership, and a viable, bipartisan blueprint for inevitable energy independence from President Obama and Congress. Yes, health care is important. So is the long-term health of our air, land and water.
There are steps all of us can take today. I own one hybrid, another on order. I bought a home a mile away from my office, to reduce my carbon footprint (and preserve some sense of sanity). But there's more I can do. Let's challenge ourselves to reinvent our own energy ecosystems.
America 2.0.: "The best way to predict the future? Invent it."
I don't pretend to have the answer key. But the same Tenacious, Fast-Forward, Can-Do American Spirit that built the transcontinental railroad, the Internet, lasers and the first artificial heart — sending men to the moon in a breathtakingly short period of time — will ultimately figure this out.
My youngest son is graduating from the Naval Academy in May, and then heading to Pensacola. He'll be flying choppers or jets; F-18s that can already run on biofuels. The Navy is serious about renewables and alternative fuels. Because it's the best way forward — protecting our troops, securing supply lines, creating economies of scale that will make biofuels more competitive, leaving the Navy less vulnerable to price shocks in the oil markets.
Hedge your bets. Put fewer troops at risk. Think ahead. Only the paranoid survive. In the words of my Eagle Scout brethren, "Be Prepared." Go Navy. Beat Army.
We don't have much time. Earth Day is April 22, but every day is Earth Day. Native Americans remind us of the sacred responsibility we have for all those who come next: "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors ... we borrow it from our children."
Comments (68)
Powerful piece. Thank you for giving rational Republicans some ammo with which to push back the shrill rhetoric of denial.
Paul, an excellent article. It is about politics which means it's all about money. I believe that bipartisan support will not materialize. Instead, we must hope for caring and tolerant people without political, religious or company earnings and stock price pressures to come forward and work together. Possible, yes, probable....
Paul, an excellent article. It is about politics which means it's all about money. I believe that bipartisan support will not materialize. Instead, we must hope for caring and tolerant people without political, religious or company earnings and stock price pressures to come forward and work together. Possible, yes, probable....
Well written by an honest republican. While we may disagree on some aspects of government rule, As a democrat I agree with the science and the logic behind human involvement in climate changes we are experienceing. Simplisticly, when you replace a sizable percentage of surface area from green to asphault you signifacatly reduce plants ability to consume CO2 while at the same time you increase the area of heat retention over the planet. Just do the math and we are responsible for adding something to what is developing into a potential disaster. If this change affects the food supply as it appears it will, society will change and that change through out history has seldom been for the better.
Climate change is a hoax and a lie, every true conservative knows that. Science lies. You cannot be a conservative, your part of this hoax.
Every true American can only believe in burning as much gasoline, oil and coal as possible. The corporations own the air, water and politicians and can do with them what they want. Anyone thinks different is a communist.
You only want to make America weaker and poorer. you can't run the Navy on left over french fry grease.
Climate change is a hoax and a lie, every true conservative knows that. Science lies. You cannot be a conservative, your part of this hoax.
Every true American can only believe in burning as much gasoline, oil and coal as possible. The corporations own the air, water and politicians and can do with them what they want. Anyone thinks different is a communist.
You only want to make America weaker and poorer. you can't run the Navy on left over french fry grease.
MPR Should be ashamed and get that Communist Garrison Dealer off the air too!
Your piece is well though out and rational. But it only tells half the story. As a partner in an alternative energy company (we do solar panels and solar thermal systems), I believe in expanding the use of alternative energy. There are appropriate places for it. And I'm a huge believer in nuclear.
I agree that the climate has changed since I was a child. Climates do that. However, you neglect to mention that there are also thousands of PhD's who disagree with your premise that man is the cause of global warming. Have you read the peer reviewed study recently released which proves the Medieval Warm Period covered the whole planet? Pre Industrial revolution? Or the CERN work which puts significance on cosmic rays and cloud formation?
There are ways to mitigate warming without huge economic dislocation. A company called Intellectual Ventures has proposed several which would actually cool the planet and have been vetted by physicists as eminently doable...without the huge economic costs.
Well said and well written! Thank you for this -- it seems so clear to those who have no special interest in greedy financial pursuits, and people speaking up as you are doing will make a difference! Thank you!!
Great article! Should be required reading for all Americans. And a third party? I think that is a must. Now!
This guy has a clean energy company, and talks about Republicans and the evils of drilling. He is as political a left-wing hack as you can get. Clue, he badmouths climate scientists who have evidence to the contrary. I cry BS.
Many climate scientists said in the 1970s and 1980s "it looks to us like rising CO2 emissions are likely to drive temperatures up." Subsequently, the '80s were hotter than the '70s, the '90s were hotter than the '80s, and the 2000s were hotter than the '90s. 1995 was at the time the hottest year ever; every year since 2001 has been hotter than 1995. These trends (along with vast amounts of other evidence) validated those scientists' predictions, and they gradually convinced 99%+ of climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. So this is among the many reasons why I trust them: their thesis held true (and keeps holding true) in a predictive fashion, not after-the-fact.
The scripture quote is not correct from Luke 16:2, even as a summary it's a bit of a stretch to use it in this context.
However, I appreciate the sentiment in this article. I hold to what I think is good more than what cable news and talk radio pundits try to tell me. More precisely, I don't have to swallow the whole ideology for me to think some things are true.
Conservatives in Europe already hold the position of this writer. The US conservative stance on climate change is an abberation that is gradually correcting itself. Capitalism will take action on climate change because climate change stands to affect profits.
Above average? Above average what? The last 100 years? do you believe the current climate is ideal and that even if we could (we cannot) we should try to maintain the climate where it is? The climate models are unvalidated and the predictions for what "may" happen are cherry picked for the few that turn out to be true. We would be far better served to learn to deal with a changing climate for whatever the reasons it is changing and has been changing for over 4 billion years.
"....there are also thousands of PhD's who disagree with your premise that man is the cause of global warming..."
There are not. The fact that man is the primary cause of global warming is accepted by every single acadamy of science on the planet and two major surveys both showed that 97.4% of the most ofted published and cited climate scientists in the US are in agreement.
Surely you are not citing the ludicrous 'Oregon Petition'?
"...Have you read the peer reviewed study recently released which proves the Medieval Warm Period covered the whole planet?..."
It showed no such thing and the lead author issued a public statement saying that some mainstream media publications had completely misrepresented his findings.
The MWP was not global and at least 12 or 13 studies made in the last decade show this. Not that it would make any difference to the CO2 induced current warming anyway.
"...Or the CERN work which puts significance on cosmic rays and cloud formation?..."
The lead scientist also issued a public statement saying that there research "Says absolutely nothing about the effect of clouds on climate change".
You've been misinformed by denialists I'm afraid.
There are ways to mitigate warming without huge economic dislocation. A company called Intellectual Ventures has proposed several which would actually cool the planet and have been vetted by physicists as eminently doable...without the huge economic costs.
It was very refreshing to see a comment from a well respected Republican that we are warming up. I was thought it was very difficult to deny the data, but I am still suprised the shear number of people who believe it is fabricated.
Thank you Mr. Douglas
"...Above average? Above average what? The last 100 years?..."
The global climate is now warmer than at any time since the Thermal Optimum around 8,000 years ago.
"...do you believe the current climate is ideal and that even if we could (we cannot) we should try to maintain the climate where it is?..."
The current climate is indeed ideal for human civilisation and agriculture and has been for around 7,000 or 8,000 years - which is, of course, why human civilisation and agriculture have flourished.
"...The climate models are unvalidated and the predictions for what "may" happen are cherry picked for the few that turn out to be true..."
The climate models have been validated many times. For just one example, during the Mount Pinatobu eruption in 1992, NASA used their model to estimate the pattern of temporary global cooling that would result over the next few years.
The prediction turned out to be extraordinarily accurate as you can see here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/figure2.GIF
(Solid line = NASA model prediction. Dotted line = what happened.)
"... We would be far better served to learn to deal with a changing climate..."
If you serioulsy believe that our civilisation can "deal with" an increase in temperature of 3 or 4C then you should study a little bit of climate science before posting.
"...for whatever the reasons it is changing and has been changing for over 4 billion years...."
Yes - it's very sensitive.
Yes Climate chanche is real!!!
Paul, thank you for publishing your piece. CO2, methane and other deadly greenhouse gases have no political affiliations. You say in part: "If we are to avoid the catastrophes associated with greater than 2 C warming...." As you know, we're already over 1.8 degrees C and 392 parts per million (ppm) in atmospheric CO2, while 1.5 degrees C and 350 ppm are regarded by authorities like NASA's Dr. James Hansen as the upper limits for maintaining life on our planet as it was in 1987 when we were at 350 ppm. So we will very likely exceed catastrophic 2 degrees C before world population balloons from over 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050. And because of our climate system's inertia in reacting to CO2, we're already locked into decades of global warming--even if we reduce CO2 emissions to zero today. Therefore, we need crash programs to reduce emissions AND adapt to increasingly adverse climate changes and weather extremes in Minnesota and the rest of our planet. Instead, fossil-fuel interests and their GOP cohorts are ravaging our biological climate by sustaining a fossil-fueled "business climate." That deliberate behavior is tantamount to criminal ecocide and genocide.
How does Liberalism expect to achieve power by condemning the children of the swing voters to the greenhouse gas ovens like fear mongering neocons? Climate change could keep libs out of power for decades and history will show it was Liberalism's Iraq War of lies and needless panic. Bush watches and laughs.
"global warming is the greatest threat to the PLANET" ---from Earth Hour
AS a conservative myself, I dont disagree about warming, I disagree about human involvement. The earth has been much warmer and much colder than today. It goes through cycles just like everything else. Do we also believe in super volcanoes from the same scientists? If we do, then take it one step further. How many volcanoes are currently erupting that we both know and dont know about? Mother nature has proven over and over and over that she is way more powerful than human involvement. Want clean energy, make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Doubt that it will change the climate though. Look at how old the planet is vs the weather / climate data that we have. It's like making a line graph with a single point. I make prediction that we will have an ice age, does that make me a climate scientist? Because it will happen again if history has anything to say about it!
You have really summed it all up in one sentence "we've turned it into a political football, a bizarre litmus test for conservatism.". This is the sad truth that most Republicans see this as a right of passage, even if they personally believe global warming is real they take it as a personal mission to still say it is fake. This can be seen very easily, just look at how many Republican presidential candidates have stated they believe in man causing global warming and now say man had nothing to do with it to court voters.
A great piece, don't let all those naysayers get you down, half of them still do not understand the difference between climate and weather.
Great piece. I only have one point of contention and that is that we will find our way out of this problem through the "free market." My family has two Priuses and 5kw of solar panels on our house, but we are, for Oklahoma, extremists who didn't mind paying $6000 more per car or taking out a home equity loan for about half of the value of our house to put those panels in place. The average American family still in the middle of this recession is never going to be able or willing to do that, however. Realistically, the cost of green energy will have to be reduced to about a quarter of what it is now for people to adopt it enmasse, and the only way that's going to happen quickly or at least in the time frame when it will do us any good is for governments to get involved and start driving down the price. This could happen in terms of subsidies or through programs like our military's where their large scale purchases are leading to the kind of mass production and supply/demand scenarios that helped see the cost of micro processors plummet in the 80s and 90s. There is nothing wrong with the government being involved with energy, the Tennessee River Valley Authority and the Hoover Dam are just two examples of the feds getting involved where markets were not crippled and generations have benefited from their largesse. Let's hope we still have the will as a nation to do what's right for our people and the world; corporations alone will never save us.
Global warming hysteria is not bad science. It is bad logic and stats. You do not commit a multi-Trillion dollar global economy to policy on the basis of projections over what amounts to a single experimental run.
You are a conservative. Who would bet the farm on a company's projected growth on a parallel basis?
Are you aware that the U.N.'s own IPPCC was rebuked by its own blue-ribbon panel for advocacy? After that, the IPPCC toned down the rhetoric on, for example, total or peak energy 'increases' soundly predicted by the warmist hypothesis model. They couldn't give a confidence rating on it.
So the GW community has taken up the bad-logic cudgels on the IPPCC's behalf.
But the media, including you and your fellow amateur climatologists don't report such strange anomalies. It's boring press.
Unrealistic and highly optimistic piece. The plan is to stop Middle East and African production of oil. If you see Global Weather Change and don't see the "covert solution" your opinion means very little to me. A smart guy washes what he "knows" and joins the bull. Agriculture, deforestations and species extinction are the big reasons but you take on cars and industry in general which is marginal. Your piece is a feel good piece and highly bias.
The only two leaders who had a rational response to clean energy were President George Bush, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The first funded the DOE's Hydrogen Initiative. The second the California Hydrogen Highway. In the last 3 years we've seen that lead squandered by an anti-technology administration that eviscerated the funding.
Republicans are often the ones championing real workable solutions...but those often step on the toes of centralizing liberals and their desire to ever expand bureaucracies.
If we were to resume building our hydrogen infrastructure -- like every other nation on earth is now doing -- we'd totally eliminate man-made CO2 save for that we we exhale.
There's no question something different has happened. But like most events in America, it has to get real bad before our population will do anything about it. That's why Vietnam took so long and ended so tragically; that's why we've had two destructive civil rights movement in our history; and frankly that's why we have most of our environmental legislation - something seriously bad happened. Now, the situation in this country is far worse, because we have religious zealots that want to change the nation, bigots that want to expel people from the nation; monopolists that think everything corporate is the right way for the nation; and cultural fearists who believe white males have lost all of their rights in this nation and must get them back. Nonunion workers are jealous of union ones, and America still has this "black problem" where inspite of financial gains, blacks are still viewed as welfare gluts and dumb classroom students. Until the ocean floads all the Rocky Mountain States or the Eastern Seaboard to the Mississippi River, nobody is going to do anything. It's like Hitchcock's Movie, "the Birds." The Birds single issolated attacks prompts people to ignore Tippi Hedron until the birds begin whole scale havoc on Bodega Bay's homes and gas stations. That movie is a metaphor for our reaction to science - we ignore until the destruction is so great that we fear for our lives.
Paul, I have been waiting for you or some meteorologist to finally say "it's climate change" for awhile now. Thank you thank you thank you. I was in Las Vegas watching the weather channel and they had an expert on who answered the question affirmatively, "is it climate change?". People believe what they hear and I'm glad meteorologists are finally saying it. The compost sites were booming yesterday and it was only April 1st! At this rate, we'll be swimming by the time we used to start planting! Absolutely climate change and we are nowhere near ready to deal with this. Keep the truth coming!
Paul may think he's a Republican, but by the standards that party has now adopted, he is no such thing.
Global warming may or may not be a long term trend, but we have not been watching it for long enough to know. The elevation of atmospheric CO2 may or may not be related to any change, but the causation is uncertain, and the models unreliable. Can we do anything about global warming even if it is both real and anthropogenic? We don't know. When things get embroiled in politics (on both sides) everything gets really hard to see clearly.
Well----it was warm in North America, but brutally (deadly) cold in Europe, Russia and Asia. Global climate changes requires one to look at, uh, the "globe". However, good article---just keep looking into the fuller picture to fully educate everyone.
Finally some sane comments, thanks Paul for crafting this fine article. Capitalism must ultimately do the job, not the zealots and political hacks like Joe Biden in D.C. who can't manage and plan their way to a annual budget, let alone a progressive energy policy that would help steer America to prosperity and sound ecological care of God's wonderful earth..
1. Irrespective of CO2, finite fossil carbon is an irreplaceable source of materials. And we are just burning it?
2. The far right likes to quote Ayn Rand whom most, including self-styled libertarians, have not actually read. Her standard response to "I have a right" was "at whose expense?" Such as we who live downstream or downwind? A truly "free" market would require producers to provide 1oo% of their overhead, which includes the cost of not dumping any of their garbage into my air, or my stream. Or clearing forest or removing mountaintops that were given them at others' expense, often at government gunpoint. Would cost at the checkout, or pump, rise? Youbecha, but we need to do the real math. Too bad math class is so hard.
Another article released just today tells that the oceans have been heating up before the earth. At the same time the sea has been rising at the rate of 1.5 mm/year for at least 6000 years except for during the mini-ice age when the sea dropped. Were those coral islands i n the ocean exposed before the mini-ice age? If not, what does that do for man-made global warming? Do I believe the world is warming? Yes. Do I believe we need to stop all energy usage. When the elite give up their cars, heating and air conditioning first, I might consider decreasing my modest consumption.
For those conservatives whose entire identity is defined by faith in the economics of capitalism and free markets, acceptance of climate change poses a danger to their sense of self, and will be avoided at all costs. Therefore, attempts to persuade this portion of the country with science and logic is a lost cause. However, for those of us who truly care about the future of our one and only planet and our species, it is time that we face what we have been loath to highlight in the past: Unfettered industrial capitalism is unsustainable and is causing climate change to spiral out of control.
So what?!
Who decided that the sea level has and should remain constant at today's levels?
Who decided that the planet should not be any warmer? Aren't there benefits? Like longer growing seasons.
Accurate recorded history of tempuratures is no more than 120 years out of an estimated 4.6 Billion years.
Answer this - how did the planet have at least two ice ages and subsequent warmings periods without man and without burning fossil fuels?
If temperatures are indeed rising (and they may) why have we not seen rising sea levels? Perhaps it is because temperatures rise in one part of the planet and fall in another.
When President Obama becomes so alarmed that man-made global warming is a real threat and Air Force One is sold for scrap - then and only then will I begin to believe that this is a real threat. Until then, it is just a vehicle for the left to control and tax commerce.
While we're at it, let's block all of the planet's volcanos to prevent them from spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
You as a meteorologist know that your job is not a science and it's wrong MOST of the time. Your record setting stats are a bit fluffed since most of the now developed world hasn't had 100's of years of records to use when comparing temperature. http://www.accuracyproject.org/recordtemps.html - When you look at this you will notice only one stated has recorded a recorded a record temperature drop in the last 15 years. For every piece of data there is another to combat it. If climate enthusiasts want us to follow, just stop using scare tactics backed by over inflated stats that turn out to be wrong.
Time. Say it with me: Time. Your opinion hinges on the perception you've garnered over your lifetime, which is not even a tick on the clock of this planet.
It is also telling that you decided to include the stages of truth... which ignores the ultimate truth - it's not a linear progression of stages, it's a cycle. It is ridiculed, violently opposed, finally accepted... and ultimately proven wrong through greater understanding beginning the cycle all over again. Once more - Time.
The test of time came in the reading of core samples and tree data that we have recently discovered to be manipulated, in however small a degree, manipulated. It is compromised. Why was it manipulated and compromised? Politics.
If man-caused global warming is real, the cause of winning people over was set back by politically acting scientists who have no one to blame but themselves for causing a controversy.
Hopefully, we'll get objective science, not someone telling an anecdote about how they miss the weather of their childhood, soon.
facts:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
humans release CO2
so do volcano etc.
it has been estimated that human activity increase CO2 emission by 3%. not much, almost nothing, right?
after 25 years at 3% annual growth, cumulated human related CO2 emissions will have doubled the initial level of CO2 ! easy to check : 1.03*1.03*1.03 etc. 25 times.
double the levels of CO2 and still believe it can have NO IMPACT ??? any persons, republican or others, who believe so is delusional, or lying.
thanks for being Christian, republican, honest and objective. The world badly needs more of people like you.
I find it so fascinating, that there are so many authorities on climate change who are neither Scientists, or Meteorologists
The author makes some very good points, but he also conveniently fails to list the amount of cold records which were set in Asia, Europe, and portions of Alaska.
He also states, "It's 85 in March. What will July bring?" Good question. And if July is not 10 to 20 degrees above normal with daily records, will he return to write another article stating that his dire prediction for summer went a bit far?
Global warming is real. Temperatures are indeed rising worldwide on an annual basis. The statistics don't lie, even if liars employ statistics. But the change is not extreme. And the predictions of more extreme hurricanes, etc have not panned out in the last 15 years. Nature is a lot larger and more powerful than we give her credit for. We can't possibly predict what the future will hold, which is why extremist predictions cause more problems than they solve.
Have you noticed that it's the deniers that are the name-callers and that most of them are from below the Mason-Dixon line?
The IPCC's Special Report on Extremes, released March 28, 2012
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
at the bottom of page 268 reads as follows:
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."
Dear RNC:
Do not waste your time calling me for another fundraising CENT until you get back to fielding candidates who embrace the approach and attitude of Mr. Douglas. I miss rationality. I miss moderation and sound judgment. That applies to many topics beyond climate change.
And, by the way, in case you're wondering: Milquetoast Mitt "Anyone But Obama" Romney does not qualify.
Yours (No Longer),
Disgruntled Former Fan
You who are so convinced we must switch to green energy must not know that every car manufactured in the last decade is a PZEV or NZEV engine. Practically or Nearly Zero Emission Vehicles! Since we have lost our manufacturing plants and those that remain have to meet such strict EPA regs, have you seen a knarly smokestack anywhere spewing putrid black smoke? Anybody seen a bunch of chimneys billowing black soot either from wood or incinerators in the city?
Anyone plan on flying in your green energy world if so on what powered by what? Remember black exhaust coming from jets, I don't think I've seen dark jet exhaust in the last 20 years. Plan on going on vacation with the kids in a Prius or some other electric car the size of your shoe? When I was a kid, cars in general got around 10-12 miles per gallon. Now the average car gets twice that. And how would you convert emerging economies from the current way of living to living green? If Americans can't afford to convert and purchase high dollar green cars, or solar panels, or build a new electrical grid with literally hundreds of thousands of windmills to power a $4T economy cheaply, and regulate everything down to what lightbulbs we burn or how much methane we fart to determine fines and taxes on it's people, how will the rest of the world afford to do it? If nuclear is cheap and ready to go just like natural gas and clean coal yet the Obama administrations EPA wants to stop or destroy each one of those industries.
First of all, you easily be a moderate republican and believe in AGW (human-caused global warming), you can even be a conservative ... however, that's much more difficult because most conservatives know how to think for themselves and usually determine that the AGW hypothesis is far from being proven, therefore, it is much too early to be making major governmental decisions. It is liberals/progressives who believe that you must fall into lock step on every issue, or you are a trader to the cause.
Second, conservatives are not name callers. It's the liberals who call people names. Liberals, in their heart of hearts, know that they are right and, therefore, anyone disagreeing must must be either crazy, stupid, or ignorant. Again, we are only interested in determining the truth.
Finally, any relationship between the weather and climate change is tenious at best, and non existant much of the time. For example, why didn't the worst winter in decades last year convince our author the AGW is not reality? And why is he not aware that the University of East Anglia has taken a second look at their data and determined that their has been no significant global warming in over a decade? In case you're not aware, it was their original data upon which all of the computer models were built; models whose predictive value has been extremely poor, if not worthless. The scientific method demands that predictions are realized, or the hypothesis is broken.
Where is the real proof that the climate change is caused SOLEY by mans burning of fossil fuels? All you have are theories. Meanwhile, any other possible causes are totally ignored. The Earth's temperature has been changing for millions of years. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. All we hear about t is the hockey stick graph of recent times. But again, the only cause that is considered is man's use of fossil fuels. Consider the deforestation of rainforests. The concrete cities & roads. Yes, maybe man is partially responsible, but its not entirely from burning fossil fuels. That may not be the cause at all. We need to look at all the possible causes, and quit focusing on just one thing. Identifying the real problem is paramont in solving problems. I don't believe we have looked at this problem objectively. We already had a conclusion and just went looking for "proof" or justification. That way, a very profitable "carbon credits" business could be created.
Global warming was a hot topic in 2005 after katrina. It is now hot again after a mild winter. However this winter was caused by an extreme in the arctic oscillation. Google it.
I like to see pro-environmental republicans, but I'm not sure this article can pull me back into the fold. The republican party seems to be only interested in helping out the 1 percent in this country and have absolutely no interest in protecting our environment where we live, work and play. The republican party objects to regulations which limit pollution and waste production, such as those which regulate the use of chemicals such as lead in household products and those which require companies to adhere to certain emissions standards. If their idea of a prosperous America means having lakes and streams unfit for swimming and fishing, then no thanks! If it means drinking water that is unsafe to drink, then no thanks! If it means air that is harmful to breathe, then no thanks! I'm not on board. We cannot live without environmental regulations.Disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, and many others have shown without a shadow of a doubt that we need some kind of regulation to prevent corporations from ruining our environment in order to further their own interests.Corporations do not "self-regulate." Corporations exist to make money, and time and time again they've shown a perfect willingness to cut corners in order to make a tidy profit. What about those 'safety plans' that BP had in place prior to Deepwater Horizon? The people making the "business" decisions aren't the ones who will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Our country needs more brave Republicans, like Paul Douglas, to stand up and "tell it like it is". The right-wing bubble is impenetrable to outsiders. Hopefully, a consensus within the bubble will emerge and break the gridlock on this issue. Paul is right that new energy technologies will be good for the economy and the environment.
Paul -
How many windmill generators does it take to replace a single coal-fired power plant?
By my calculation, it takes between 600 and 700, running at rated capacity.
Since the current windmills (located on the best sites) only generate about 20% of their rated capacity, it will take 3000 windmills to replace a single coal plant...
We have about 340,000 MW of coal plant generation here in the US. At 3000 windmills per 1,000 MW of generating capacity, that is about a million windmills...
Do the math...
This guy has got it right. We have to be fiscally responsible, with limited government control, yet when it comes down to it, we can't destroy the very planet we live on, bottom line.
Even if one can be so stubborn as to refuse to believe in global warming / climate change, one can not ignore the fact that pollution is real and is causing a detriment to human society as well as the entire ecosystem. The great Pacific garbage patch is solid evidence of that, among many other factors. This should not be a liberal or conservative issue, it is a scientific fact that pollution harms the planet and greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm faster. It becomes politics when big business greases the palms of lobbyists in favor of pollution with little or no limitations, thereby increasing industrial profits and further fueling the corporate fascist agenda. The government should not be influenced by large corporations and large corporations should not be subsidized by big government.
We have to be financially and environmentally responsible to the point of re-assessing our priorities. Would you give your children a dirty t-shirt to wear? Then why give them a dirty planet to live on?
I'm sure money drives the political truth and what the 99.99999 percent believe, but taking a look a maybe 150 to 200 years of data is simply retarded. In the time equation, 200 years is about 1 minute of data. I guess for those of you who believe that earth is 6000 years old, the data means something. Wake up 99.9999, next time take the blue pill and dump the coolaid.
One needs not take a pill or crawl through any rabbit hole to find the truth. It is clear as daylight. The process of global warming is evident in the simplest desktop biosphere science experiment. This demonstrates that gases such as carbon dioxide, when released in large amounts, will cause the greenhouse effect, which traps the heat that normally escapes, thereby warming the contained environment. When the same concept is applied to earth, the same results will occur. Therefore, regardless of how many years of data we look at involving the earth's temperatures, and the continuous cycle of global cooling and warming, we must admit that we ourselves are causing an additional, man-made impact on the temperature of the earth.
We all realize that volcanoes can produce the same greenhouse gases as well and have done so for millions of years. We can look at the ice cores and read the overwhelming amount of data that is as obvious as reading the rings of a tree. However, when we neglect to recognize the fact that us humans have created a reasonably sized impact, we are turning our heads to the elephant in the room and ignoring our responsibility of stewards of the earth. What impact we do have, may very well tip the scales that nature did not intend to deal with.
Myself, I'd rather be safe than sorry and not cause the proverbial bathtub to overflow.
THANK YOU for this. I have always been impressed with you, now even more so. Keep up the great work!
Great eye opener! We've been expecting this news, but hoped it could be avoided. Please inform me on what can be done on a small town local level.
Please at least try to understand that in order to create alternative energy (which we have frantically been doing over the last 10 yrs), it requires a LOT more oil to create. THIS is also contributing to our CO2 emissions. Us MAKING electric cars, MAKING, solar panels, MAKING, wind turbines, MAKING geothermal wells, MAKING things that are "clean". We are digging for rare earth metals to make batteries have increased 1000 x's. Guess what bull dozers are running on. Manufacturing plants making solar panels and wind turbines...gets most of their energy from oil, coal, and natural gas. Somehow we like to ignor these facts. Until all these "clean energy" providers can self sustain and make more clean energy, we are HIGHLY dependent on oil....and its' going to take a LOT of solar, wind, and thermal to sustain itself. Now after we're done with the battery...what do you do with the lead, nickel, mercury, cadmium, alkaline? Guess where that energy will come from when they to try to recycle what they can. The rest needs to go somewhere. Hmm...think. Where would that be?
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences." -Churchill
Why is it that billions of dollars, warehouses of supercomputers, and corporations composed entirely of mathematicians can't predict the future of the housing market more than a few months in advance, but millions of dollars, small offices full of computers, and loosely affiliated networks of mathematicians have the future narrowed down to a lead pipe cinch (+/- 1 lead pipe)?
Science holds no eminent domain on the truth, only a very good method for discovering it. Our brains didn't evolved to find the truth, just to survive. This should be apparent from the point where even the most logical being will forego the truth if they perceive it as needlessly destructive to themselves or others. Moreover, the scientific method, even when flawlessly executed, is still prone to the absurdities of human error (group think, proximity bias, nepotism, self-delusion, etc.) Using science to address these issues is like using a hammer to weave cloth.
'All models are wrong, some are useful.' -George E. P. Box
How can anyone argue that climate is changing as we know it? Is it natural progression? Who the hell cares!? What we do, especially in America, is awful to the environment. That's not debatable. And if you think it is then turn your fox news back on. It doesn't matter if you can think for yourself or simply repeat what Glenn Beck has to say,what we are doing is not sustainable. It's repulsive to hear that "it's stupid to build wind turbines because it takes oil, it's silly to build solar panels because it burns fossil fuels". When viewed globally, the USA is the worst nation regarding the consumption of oil. Why don't right-winged Americans care? Because the very people telling them how to think are probably heavily invested in big oil. Do some research, construct some of your own thoughts, and join the reality that we are ruining the planet. Are we arguing for arguments sake against global warming? What positive can we gain to disagree? More drilling? More bombing? Who benefits? The people telling Christian, Republicans how to "think", that's who. I just hope Noah builds another ark for when the ice caps melt. I'll personally ride it out in the belly of a whale. (I do apologize to those that separate mythology from theology)
This guy calls him a conservative? John McCain personal hero? This guy is a moderate. Most republicans believe in global climate change, the don't believe in human disasterious climate change. We only have theories on how big time disasters happen.
Many land grant universities have proven an economic and well-being improvement for the U.S. and its allies if the world would warm.
There's a saying "If you want something done right do it yourself". Even if we didn't use another drop of oil ourselves why wouldn't we drill baby drill to feed the developing countries and use the profits for alternative energy? Money doesn't grow on trees.. well liberals seem to think so.
Thanks Paul, well written...one point to remember...the earth NOW is supporting 7 BILLION+ humans and this number will double shortly...if each is producing "Farts" at an astounding rate...let alone all the other creatures that live here... no wonder METHANE permeates our atmosphere and thus impacts golbal climate change... at NO other time in human history have so many lived...I add this humorous point to a serious issue that all people should be concerned about...Thanks Paul for your thoughts..God Bless this World..the ONLY ONE we have!
As a self-professed Christian, Paul will have to consider this with regard to his beliefs: if an architect designs a building, and it crumbles to the ground when someone leans against it, you would conclude it was a shotty design. Do you believe that when God created the world he 1) designed it so poorly that a few rogue molecules could doom it 2) that God didn't have the foresight to see that eventuality and finally that Christ's promise to return to earth in a final battle to defeat evil once and for all will be cut short because of global warming? I'm not going to sugar coat it Paul: As a Christian, you can believe in weather patterns that change and become more erratic, but you cannot believe in a theory that solely spells the end of humanity. From one brother to another.
We have met the enemy, and they are us.
For deniers I have a few simple links I recommend to get scientific opinions from the community.
www.realcliamte.org
www.skepticalscience.com
http://climatecrocks.com/
The planet will be fine with raising CO2, how we act and what it means for us is what is important. The argument that "GOD made the Earth too great to be affected by our meager pollution" is fallacious in the truest sense. A scientist can be a hold religious values and see that we ARE doing something to the climate. To say science is the enemy of religious doctrine is naive and ignorant.
A couple questions for you. Climate change may be occurring but its hard to know as the amount of change is within the margin of error ascribed to the data. But lets say it is up a bit as suggested. How is it possible for CO2 to trap/redirect heat when it passes the energy at nearly the speed of light and without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? We know that temps have gone up and down over time and without the benefit of SUVs. Whats clear is that we don't know what causes it nor is there much reason to think man has any impact.
Thank you, Paul Douglas, for suggesting but not quite claiming this unprecedented spring warmth is due to Man(n) made climate change.
In 2013 there has been no mention of catastrophic climate change, at least not until warmer weather returns.
Climate changes, always has - always will. That is a fact.
The fact that the planet is warming -depends upon one's time frame.
Catastrophic Climate Crisis is an opinion that is based on unproven or unprovable principles.
Until a scientifically testable climate crisis hypothesis is articulated- the fear of anthropogenic global warming is by definition, based in personal or 'scientific' dogmas.
Lastly; simply because one disagrees with the status quo does not make one a "denier" as there are many among us who are heretics, blasphemers, contrarians and/or seekers of the established principles of science as they hopefully, one day will be applied to climatology.
Respectfully,
-ronnie
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
