Climate Change is Real, People

Watch this Nissan commercial.  It was aired at the New Orleans Saints' football game and it really nails the global warming issue.  Besides, polar bears are beautiful creatures to watch.  Makes me want to consider a Leaf as my next car.

Climate Change V

The LA Times has a headline: Climate Talks Deadlocked as Clashes Erupt Outside 


I think we were very fortunate in the 1980s.  Of course the stakes weren't so high and the issue was hardly as global. When I was going to meetings in London to amend The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Waste and other Matter based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's work to revise criteria for the disposal of radioactive waste into the oceans, Greenpeace organized active protests in front of the building where we met.  One morning I was greeted with 55-gallon drums with the words "dump the IAEA" on it.  I thought it pretty clever wording, but it had little effect, I still continued to serve as the IAEA representative.


The protesters in Copenhagen want to dump the official delegates and do the work themselves.  It's an interesting concept and has some things of merit, but not likely to work very well.  The reason international agreements are so difficult is that so many interests are at stake.  Our Bishop has a book discussion going on-line with the book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope by Brian D. McLaren.  I rather like McLaren's somewhat simplistic Three Subsystems in Society that help to form a "suicide machine": the prosperity system, the security system and the equity system.  When these systems are not functioning in an interactive way with each system checking the others, bad things happen.  He goes on to point out that there are of course other factors, our environment, for example. We take in heat from the sun and we generate heat from other sources. The heat needs to go somewhere.  We pollute in lots of other ways, too.  I do wish I had more time to write about this, but it will have to wait at least until I get going on my trip west.


In the article quoted at the start of this post i was taken with the following statement: "Much of the uncertainty in the Copenhagen talks stems from how slowly the first U.S. legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions is moving through Congress. Passage of a U.S. climate change bill is expected no earlier than next spring -- and many other nations are unwilling to make their final commitments until the U.S. does."

Climate Change IV

Huffington Post has this fascinating article on Copenhagen and global warming called COP 15: Accepting Responsibility.  It starts:

Imagine you're a well-to-do person attending a dinner of your peers. The food is top-rate and there's plenty of it. Course after course is laid upon the table.

A group of less-advantaged people has been watching from the sidelines. When the dinner is done, you invite them to join you at the table. After the restaurant staff has served coffee, the bill comes. You and your rich peers insist that everyone now at the table must share in paying the entire bill.

The author, William S. Becker, Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, uses this story to make the position of delegates from emerging economies clearer.  They want reparations to help them deal with anticipated changes.  The US negotiator is using a "blissful ignorance" defense.  Later in the article it says

Every U.S. president since  [1965 when President Johnson's science advisors told him] (words in brackets mine) has known of the risks of climate change. Every president and Congress since has failed to adequately mitigate or manage that risk. Although then Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the United States in 1998, the U.S. Senate made clear it would not vote in favor of ratification. As a result, President Clinton didn't bother to try.

The climate change negotiations are about money, but they're also about responsibility.  The US and other nations need to step up to the plate.  I personally don't care if the money used is called a reparation payment or not.

Climate Change III

From the Bangor Daily News

The Most Terrifying Video

If you have about ten minutes to spend, look at this. It helps if you're a nerd like me, or if you want more information on the various positions on climate change.  It's a few years old (2007), but is right on. It's about decision making and climate change. Greg Craven, the author has written a book, "What's the Worst that Could Happen," based on this.

Climate Change II

Photo: Campbell Shelf Ice (NOAA) from Wikimedia
Andrew Revkin and James Kanter have an article in today's NY Times "Climate Conference Begins to Feel Pressure of the Clock."  Having been a "sherpa"/ observer on international agreements on marine pollution, I feel a great deal of sympathy for those people who are working so hard to come up with an agreement that the politicians can sign.  National interests, both economic and political are always there and especially in the case of climate change the question of who pays is always there.  The authors say:

The main points of contention remain as they have been for years, with a gulf to be bridged particularly on four points:

• How much and how fast rich countries should cut their emissions or pledge to limit the rise in planetary temperature.
• How much emerging economic powers like China and India should rein in the growth of their emissions, and how they should prove they have diverted from “business as usual.”
• How much rich countries should compensate poor ones to limit vulnerability to climate extremes that are expected to worsen in many regions near the Equator as greenhouse gases build in the atmosphere and seas continue rising.
• How those money flows can be guaranteed, given that past commitments under earlier climate pacts have largely gone unpaid, and which bloc gets to manage and administer the money.

And, as expected, the Republican right is leading the charge denying that there is such a thing as global warming citing some questions on data from a British center. It's just a red herring. The article goes on to say:

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has led that charge, proclaiming over the weekend that the climate proposals of China and other large industrialized countries were a smokescreen for what was really an economic battle. Over the weekend, his official blog quoted him as saying, “China, India, Mexico, they’re all champing at the bit for America to ration our energy, because they know they’ll get our manufacturing jobs.”

Of course this battle has an economic component.  However, study after study seems to show that saving energy saves money in the long run.  Both the World Meteorological Organization and our NOAA say that the decade we are now in is warmer than the 1990s.  But it looks like economics will triumph.  I only hope that whatever the proposals are they do take scientific data seriously.  Trying to redress all the ills of the world by tying it to this one issue will not work.

Controlling marine pollution is a piece of cake compared to climate change.  But even then, we worked till the wee hours to get a final draft done. It took four years and five-10 day meetings to come up with a regional agreement, so I can just imagine the background work it has taken on this issue which is global.

Rich countries, like the U.S., really will have to belly up to the bar.  Denying that we've not contributed to a problem that is far more likely to affect the poorer countries of the world so flies in the face of the message that Jesus brought.  Pray for all who are working to bring about an international agreement and pray that this time the U.S. will sign on in spite of Inhofe and his ilk.

Climate Change, Gordon MacDonald and Some Thoughts on Science

Photo from Wikimedia Commons.
Some years ago, in the mid 1980s, while I was working for the International Atomic Energy Agency, I was asked to attend the first meeting on global warming held in Geneva as an observer from the IAEA. It was the only meeting on that particular subject that I attended, but it really opened my eyes to the particularly myopic view of the United States on global warming. Finally that vision seems to be sharpening and I do hope that the meetings in Copenhagen are fruitful.

Some years before that I worked for Gordon J. F. MacDonald, then at the MITRE Corporation, and he was so concerned about global warming that he posed for a picture on the cover of People Magazine where he stood on the steps of the US Capital building showing where water could rise to if global warming did become a reality. Even though Gordon was first and foremost a scientist and believed that scientific literature was the place to publish data, he thought the issue serious enough to use a popular magazine to try to promote his point of view. He was somewhat embarrassed by this. [People Magazine only goes back to 1990 on line, so I can’t find a copy of the photo]

After my years in Vienna he became the head of IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis). Global warming was still a concern of his. If he were still alive, I’m sure he would still be pushing for people to pay attention. The National Academy of Sciences published a review of his scientific work which may be found at: http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/gmacdonald.pdf

Gordon was a holdout against the theory of plate techtonics for many years, but the evidence eventually convinced him, albeit grudgingly. If only those who do not accept that we humans are responsible for global warming would keep open minds to the data. So few people take the time to look at the data for themselves and the number of people who have taken sufficient science and math courses seems to have dwindled.

While I worked at the IAEA on the control of deep sea disposal of radioactive waste, one particular issue bugged me (and some other scientists as well). That was whether the long-held assumption that if humans are protected against the negative effects of ionizing radiation, so would other [read lesser] organisms in the environment. Some of us asked if this really was true for radioactive materials placed into the deep sea (deep meaning 4000+ meters). We know so little about the interchange of deep sea organisms with those we harvest for food, and most of the calculations and criteria involve protecting our food supply. So we made some simple assumptions and used a fairly simple model and concentrated on what might be the impacts on organisms that might live at such depths. What the modeling showed was that the assumption was likely false. If we want to protect future generations the same way we protect our own, we need to pay attention to the potential of negative effects.

Global warming has gone beyond the realm of potentiality for me. I believe it is a real threat and that future generations will suffer or benefit from what we are doing now. Do I think that Copenhagen will come up with a workable plan. I hope so. I pray so. I am also realistic. It is very complicated and countries don’t act against their perceived economic self-interest. So I am both optimistic and pessimistic. God created a wonderful world for us and gave us stewardship over it. God also gave us brains to figure out and create solutions. I sometimes wonder if God wonders if we are worth it, and then remember that God’s son came to show us we are.

Saturday Thoughts

Our retreat went well.  The group worked hard on re-defining their mission and came up with a wonderful piece of art work to describe it.  The collage shows God at the center of all they do with rays going out to a diverse community and butterflies.  Their mission is to be catalysts for the diocese in developing and supporting lay ministries. 

Doorman Priest posted a video about global warming on his site and it generated a lot of comments.  For those of you who don't usually go there I highly recommend this.  It goes with my post earlier this week on how "ice out" has gotten earlier over the past century.

I've been away for nearly three days and the pond that is less than 200 feet from the house is nearly free of ice.  Just a little is left at the far end.  I noticed that the lake has streaks of open water now.  It may be that "ice out" will happen before the end of April.  Also there is green grass beginning to peek up through the dead stuff and major growth in the bulbs.  Soon there will be flowers.  The daffodils and tulips are up in full bloom down the mountain.  The retreat center had fresh cut blooms on the dining tables each day and they were even cutting the grass yesterday morning.  It's nice enough this afternoon to sit on the deck and drink a cup of tea, in fact it feels downright warm.  I even ate my supper out there and so did Izzie.

Izzie had a good time at our friend's.  She wasn't at home when I got there.  The two of them were off playing dominos.   Izzie and Oscar behaved pretty well.  There was no chasing the cat up the stairs, only an ocassional sniff as they passed each other.

Ice Out

Getting up late and sipping coffee and scratching Izzie's head are part of what make Monday mornings special.  The sky is blue this morning and the ice on the pond is slowly disappearing. Lots more open water. There was even a bit of open water on the large lake in front of the church. I noticed that the iris and daylillies are beginning to peek through the ground.  It's still below freezing at night, though.

Every year there's an "Ice Out" contest.  People guess the date and hour that the lake is navigable from one end to the other.  Last year I did a plot of the dates (actual, not guesses) and did a linear regression and, sure enough, it looks like global warming is real.  If the ice out date this year were to fall right on the curve it would be around May 3 like it was last year. There are data every year starting with the late 1800s and the average is about a week earlier.  Of course the actual dates vary dramatically, but the trend seems to be real.

Our church is working hard at energy conservation.  We've replaced all of the lights that could be replaced including putting new fixtures in the nave.  We now have programmable thermostats. We replaced the windows in the church and when the siding on the lake side was replaced, additional insulation was added.  We added a fuel catalyst to our oil furnace to help reduce the amount of oil we use.   Our next project is a windmill.  As I've mentioned in earlier blogs the wind really blows here.  Then we'll replace the hot water heating system, which comes off the furnace (that means the furnace has to run in the summer) with an electric hot water heater.  It will be interesting to see how much energy we'll end up saving.  We're going to check out the old freezers in the food pantry to see if any of them need to be replaced.  Our senior warden has been spearheading this effort and has done a fantastic job.