As the title indicates, this is the beginning of a series of diaries on those facts which support the conclusion that human beings are primarily responsible for the earth's rapidly changing climate. However, permit me a small digression before we begin in order for me to explain why I feel this series, especially for non-scientists, has relevance. My principle reason for this series is help ordinary individuals fight against the many falsehoods and lies promulgated by climate change "skeptics."
Introduction: Combating the Lies About Climate Change
If, like me, you are not a scientist, or have little scientific training, it can be difficult to argue with family and friends, particularly conservative or Republican ones, who (1) deny climate change is occurring or (2) believe that whether or not it's occurring, science has not demonstrated any connection between human activity and rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, mass extinction, etc. Heck, even people with a background in science are often ignored by such people.
You can argue that 97% of climate scientists agree that the rapid changes to our planet's climate are primarily driven by human actions until you are blue in the face, but many of our conservative brethren refuse to accept the "opinions" of those scientists. In general, they see little reason for changing our continued reliance on burning fossil fuels for energy. They come to the argument already convinced that you are either lying, an "alarmist" or simply a liberal who wants to expand government.
In effect, these folks have been "brainwashed" by the right wing propaganda machine. A group of well-funded "deniers" and skeptics, they have done an excellent job at confusing people, in part by by arguing that anyone who claims climate change is real and caused by human activity must be motivated by bias, conspiracy, greed, or even the desire to destroy the United States. Unfortunately, the people who sell this narrative, one with no factual basis, are frequently given a platform by both traditional media and outlets dedicated to misrepresenting the reality in order to advance a political agenda (i.e., Fox News).
Indeed, deniers make a point of proclaiming that climate change is either a hoax or based on "junk science" though they rarely, if ever provide any factual support for these assertions. Those who are willing to admit the climate may be changing generally deny that human activity has anything to do with it. One recent example of an elected official publicly denying climate change has any relationship to human actions isSenator Marco Rubio (R-FL) who boldly stated:
I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.
Others politicians make outrageous claims that advocating that climate change is real is unpatriotic. House Republicans recently passed a Defense department funding bill that would explicitly prohibit the Defense Department from studying the national security consequences of climate change. In a memo released by the proponent of that amendment, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), he told his colleagues that "climate change" is merely a "political ideology."
These known "knowns" regarding what conservatives, climate "skeptics" say about climate change are not about science at all. Their statements are generally merely unsupported opinions. Their position on climate change truly is a "political ideology," one in which they support the increased extraction and continued use of fossil fuels in order to benefit some of the richest people and corporations on our planet.
In the worst case, statements, such as those made by Senator Rubio, constitute outright lies and falsehoods. Unfortunately, the deniers who promote their "ideology" have had a lot of success misleading the public about the actual state of our changing climate, the dangers we face and the facts discovered by climate researchers that support the science.
There may be value in responding to such deceitful propagandists with emotional appeals based on the danger we face from this very real worldwide crisis.
However, I strongly believe that educating the public about the scientific basis of climate change is essential to any campaign to change "hearts and minds" as it were. The "deniers and skeptics" have done a masterful job at confusing much of the public that this is a political controversy. Even those not inclined to buy-in to all the "noise" in the media that a controversy about these facts exist, are often confused enough that mere emotional pleas to "save the planet" will fall on deaf ears. This is especially the case since the actions required to do so will require a fundamental change in the way human civilization is organized and functiuons.
Simply making the argument that the science of climate change is well known and accepted does little to alter anyone's opinion. However, when given the opportunity to speak about established facts, I've had greater success in convincing some individuals to listen to me. Many people are surprised to learn that scientists actually have a great deal of data which supports their conclusion that the burning of coal, oil and gas for energy, is the primary driver behind the rapid change in our climate patterns.
It may be impossible to explain the basis for climate change to non-scientists in one easy to understand presentation. However, I contend it isn't that difficult to provide facts to doubters, one by one, that ultimately lead many people to conclude that climate scientists aren't part of some grand conspiracy to screw them over, but actually have a sound basis for their climate change models and predictions.
The first such fact I wish to discuss is fundamental and, surprisingly, not the subject of much debate. It's the rapid increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Follow me below the orange squiggle, please ....
Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Atmosphere Have Risen Dramatically
Most people understand that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas." In short, it acts much like the glass roof of a green house, which, after allowing light to pass through, traps solar heat energy inside to warms the air by preventing that heat energy from radiating back outside. Ask someone to explain why plants can be grown in a greenhouse during the winter, and many of them will understand the relationship between the glass or plastic covering that allows light to reach the plants inside, but blocks heat radiation from escaping the greenhouse, thus warming the air inside what is, in effect, a closed system.
What many do not understand so well is that the earth's atmosphere itself is a closed system. However, it doesn't a require a great leap of faith for most people to appreciate that the earth's atmosphere, no matter how large it may seem, is not infinite. And that is the starting point for demonstrating that increasing the percentage of those gases that keep the sun's energy in the form of heat from reflecting back into space (such as happens on the moon, which lacks an atmosphere) will have an effect of increasing the temperature of the atmosphere over time.
From that stating point we move to the most fundamental fact that underlies the science of climate change: the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
Scientists know from measurements taken from ice cores that over the last 10,000 years, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were generally stable. Prior to 1950 or so, those levels varied within a narrow range between 250 and 300 parts per million (ppm), with a slight upward trend. However, since 1950, we have seen CO2 readings in the atmosphere climb at at ever increasing rate until April of this year when, for the first time ever, the monthly average for April exceeded 400 parts per million.
Now what does that mean? A good way to understand this rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is to view the following graph, which uses data from three sources: (1) data from the Taylor Ice Dome core samples from which CO2 levels in the atmosphere were calculated by scientists at NOAA for the time period roughly beginning at 228, 160 B.C.E. until 2000 CE.; (2) data from the Law Dome ice core samples compiled by researchers associated with the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which covers the time period 1006 C.E. to 1978 C.E.; and (3) direct measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels taken by NOAA at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. Here is what these measurement reveal over the past 10,00 years:
Some "climate change skeptics" argue that the Mauna Loa observatory measurements are not valid because of the volcano there. However, when the CO2 levels measured at the Mauna Loa observatory (the oldest data set of direct CO2 measurements) are compared to other observations from around the world, it turns out they track closely with those other direct observations since at least 1980, as shown in this graph:
It seems that The growth in carbon dioxide over the past few decades is astounding. According to Pieter Tans, senior scientist with NOAA, since the last Ice age, it took ...
"7,000 years for carbon dioxide levels to rise by 80 parts per million" ... Because of the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide levels have gone up by the same amount in just 55 years.
It took 7000 years to raise the CO2 levels from 240 ppm to 320, but only fifty-five years to reach 400 ppm. That is, carbon dioxide levels for the 7000 years prior to 1959 rose at an average rate of 0.11 parts per million (ppm) per year. In the last 55 years, however, CO2 levels rose at the average rate of 1.45 parts per million per year. In fact, the rate of increase of CO2 levels in the air
over the last decade has exceeded that figure substantially.
For the past ten years, the average annual rate of increase is 2.07 parts per million (ppm). This rate of increase is more than double the increase in the 1960s.
Put yet another way, over the last 55 years, the average yearly rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 rose 1300% over the yearly average for the preceding 7,000 years combined. However you describe the rate at which atmospheric CO2 has increased, the high levels of CO2 we are seeing today have been reached in a very, very short period of time. To call this phenomenon unprecedented is an understatement.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now the highest they have been in three million years according to available data. For some perspective on what that means, the last time CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere were this high ...
"[t]here were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 10 and 20 meters (33 to 66 feet)."
And of course, that was when the CO2 levels were stable at 400 ppm. Assuming that the amount of CO2 continues to increase at the rate of 1.45 ppm each year - a conservative assumption considering increases over the last decade have averaged over 2 ppm per year - by 2050 there will be at least 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and by 2100 that level will have risen to an average amount in excess of 500 ppm.
So, we know that CO2 levels are extremely high, relative to where they were only 200 years ago, and also relative to the last 10,000 years, at a minimum. Where is all this CO2 coming from. Not surprisingly, we know the answer to that question, as well. It's coming from us.
Burning Fossil Fuels is primarily responsible for the increase in CO2 levels
Now for the second and fundamental fact that supports the claims of climate scientists: most of the increase in CO2 results from the burning of coal, oil and gas by human beings. This is where most skeptics attempt to confuse people by arguing that we don't know what is causing the increase in CO2. In fact, we do.
Human activity increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and in the oceans) through a number of means, including changes in land use (i.e., deforestation) and industrial processes. However, the largest source of human carbon emissions (87%) comes from burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas.
Since the Industrial Revolution, human sources of carbon dioxide emissions have been growing. Human activities such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, as well as deforestation are the primary cause of the increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. The remainder results from the clearing of forests and other land use changes (9%), as well as some industrial processes such as cement manufacturing (4%).
Think about that for a moment. Eighty-seven percent of all the added CO2 in the air
since the Industrial Revolution came, and continues to come, from our reliance on fossil fuels for producing energy.
According to the International Energy Agency [1]: "Global carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2011." In 2012, emissions from the the use of fossil fuels by human beings was even greater:
Global CO2 emissions grew 3 percent last year, and scientists with the Global Carbon Project estimate they will grow another 2.6 percent this year, to an estimated 35.6 billion metric tons.
A gigatonne, by the way is equal to 1 billion metric tonnes, or for those of you who are unfamiliar with the metric system, 267,922,880,720 lbs. (i.e., approximately 2.68 trillion lbs.). However you measure the amount it's a very large number. And that is the amount that humans are contributing just from one source: burning fossil fuels. By the way, these are figures that "climate skeptic" Senator Rubio himself accepts, as he stated to Bill O'Reilly in the same interview in which he claimed human activity is not a significant cause of CO2.
There are 35 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere this year. We Americans are only responsible for six of it. By the year 2050 China and India alone will produce 50 gigatons.
I'll give Senator Rubio this much, he telling some of the truth, just not all of it. While the total emissions by the United States represent roughly 17% of all CO2 emissions worldwide, on a per capita basis (i.e., per person) the United States and Canada lead the world by a significant margin, exceeding
16 metric tons per person in 2012 according to the EDGAR assessment, a database created by the European Commission in association with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
However, the main point to take away from this is not how much CO2 is being added to our atmosphere by any particular country. The main point is that even critics of climate science, such as Senator Rubio, do not dispute that humanity is adding historically massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and that the amount of CO2 we emit is likely to continue at this high level, or even increase - as Senator Rubio himself stated, to 50 - 80gigatons of CO2 by 2050. According to the OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, this may result in the unheard of level of 685 ppm of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere within 35 years.
So, we know as a fact that human activity is responsible for increased CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere. Why does that matter however? The entire amount of CO2 in the atmosphere equals 720 billion gigatons of CO2 and the earth's oceans contain another roughly 38,000 gigatons of carbon. Adding a mere 35 - 50 gigatons of CO2 per year as a result of human action is a relatively small amount by comparison. How could it possibly cause global warming and climate change? The answer to that question will be addressed in the Part 2 of this series: "Facts about the Earth's Carbon Cycle." [2]
______________________
1. The IEA is an intergovernmental organization that was created by the governments of various industrialized countries in Europe, North America and Asia in the 1974 after the first oil crisis that resulted from the Arab Oil embargo. The primary individual behind its creation was the then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. The initial purpose of the IEA was to establish an organization to advise its member states regarding how to ensure their future energy needs would be met.
The IEA was founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis in order to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.
When it was founded, the main objectives of the IEA were:
- to maintain and improve systems for coping with oil supply disruptions
- to promote rational energy policies in a global context through co-operative relations with non-member countries, industry and international organisations
- to operate a permanent information system on the international oil market
- to improve the world’s energy supply and demand structure by developing alternative energy sources and increasing the efficiency of energy use
- to promote international collaboration on energy technology and
- to assist in the integration of environmental and energy policies
2. For those of you who are impatient and prefer to discover this information for yourself, may I recommend the following links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/...