About a year ago, lost in a sea of depressing comments denying climate change on social media, I decided to begin collecting articles that pertained to global warming. What I want to do here is share everything I've collected thus far, hyperlinks and explanations and all.
The primary impediment to worthwhile climate change policy is individuals' behavior. Much of our behavior is guided by either an unawareness or a misunderstanding of pertinent information about our world—thus the need to educate ourselves, to learn, to explore constantly. Today, especially in America, a systemic unawareness of the environment plagues our shared culture. I do not think that this deficiency stems from viciousness; rather, I simply attribute it to a lack of education, to a forgetfulness that humans are material animals embedded in an environment (whether that be the backcountry of the Sierras or a downtown intersection of Manhattan). It is my hope that this (admittedly long) blogpost about climate change will, at the very least, make you aware of climate change. Perhaps a change in behavior will come later . . .
Where to start? Well, Michelle Bachman always makes a great punching bag. Remember when Representative Bachman claimed that "carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature"? Some of you may be laughing right now after watching this clip, but remember that many Americans watch that same clip and nod their heads in agreement. So let's break down Michelle Bachman's argument: A) CO2 is a byproduct of natural processes; B) natural processes of the earth are harmless; C) furthermore, natural processes are necessary to the Earth's functioning; D) Therefore, CO2 is both harmless and necessary.
It's easy to find flaws in this argument. I'll focus on one: Bachman commits the infamous "either/or fallacy," which falsely asserts that something (i.e., CO2) is either good or bad, but never both. Unfortunately for us humans, our world is more complicated that such naive thinking. Of course carbon and carbon dioxide are absolutely necessary to life on Earth (as we know it)! But is it possible that we could have too much carbon dioxide? Yes! Bachman's logic is inherently flawed right when she asserts that natural processes of the earth are harmless, and I'm sure you can think of many counterexamples to that claim. My favorite is water intoxication, which occurs when a person drinks too much water.
The fundamental fact of Climate Change science is that CO2 LEVELS (AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES, SUCH AS METHANE) HAVE BEEN INCREASING IN OUR ATMOSPHERE. Contrary "Bachman's Science -101," increasing levels of CO2 do not bode well for the biosphere as we know it and the biosphere in which we as a species evolved (along with millions of other species). Too much of something, no matter its being a "natural process," might be a bad thing. Watch these quick videos from scientists Bill Nye and Michael Ranney to understand just why TOO MUCH CO2 doesn't treat our biosphere all too well.
"Okay," some may say, "But hasn't the Earth always had fluctuating CO2 levels? If so, then what's the big deal?" An excellent point and a great question! The sophomoric, hippie environmentalist (as I once was) or the religious fundamentalist would reject that claim: "the Earth," they would say, "has always been the same, and we are changing it." Not quite. The Earth has always been in flux, with old species dying and new species arriving, with different gases in different concentrations in the atmosphere, with tectonic plates ripping continents apart here and crashing into each other there, and on and on and on. Furthermore, every animal and plant has a two-way relationship with the environment—it affects the environment, and the environment affects it. This is especially true with Homo sapiens—us.
The kicker is that those changes usually occur over eons and eons of time. I'm talking tens of thousands of even millions of years, during which change occurs very slowly. Such subtly incremental shifts allow species and ecosystems to adapt. So yes, the climate and CO2 has always changed, but slowly. Unfortunately for climate change today, they are both changing very fast, as explained here (watch that short clip) and here. That's right, the climate is changing at a faster pace than any other change in the past 65 MILLION YEARS. That sucks for non-human species—in fact, we're probably in the midst of the 6th mass extinction event of Earth's 4.5 billion year history, and the culprit is us human beings, particularly our love affair with fossil fuels (and, thus, increasing levels of greenhouse gases).
The Earth is trying to adapt to these increasing gas emissions, as seen in this fascinating article that details how the CO2 cycle is taking "deeper breaths," particularly in the Boreal Forests of North America (all the more reason to oppose Tar Sands Bitumen production, which devastates the Boreal Forests). But alas, the Earth cannot breathe deeply enough to handle rising CO2 emissions, and looking at projected CO2 emissions for the coming decades, it looks like a losing battle if we "stay the course" of unimpeded economic development, rising population, and current [fossil fuel dependent] energy sources.
And yes, non-human species face a losing battle. Now this is important. When you read comments on social media asking exactly who these climate scientists are and what evidence do they actually reference and how do they know that the climate is changing, remember this: there are hundreds (THOUSANDS!) of different criteria to test the hypothesis that 1) the Earth's climate is changing; and 2) it's changing very quickly; and 3) that fast-rate of change corresponds with the fast-rate of industrial (fossil-fuel dependent) "progress." And my favorite way to test that hypothesis is to looking at changes in animal and plant behavior.
Are you ready? I'm about to blitz you with a dozen or so criteria that suggest hour climate is changing rather quickly.
The cutest evidence is that Snowshoe Hares are having a hard time blending in with the surroundings. Wait, no, that ain't cute; that's deadly! Good luck escaping predators' eyes, Snowshoe Hare! Hares switch the colors of their bodies (from brown to white) when the days start shortening. Because snow is falling later and melting earlier, they are, well, standing out a bit too much. Snowshoe Hares aren't the only animals trying to survive in a new hot world—moose (meese?) got it bad, too. Moose populations are declining rapidly, and wildlife biologists think that the culprit is rising temperatures: rising temperatures = shorter and less severe winters = more ticks = sick moose.
The good news is that climate change sometimes bodes well for a few animals. The bad news is that many of those animals are pests to us humans and to current ecosystems. For example, those pesky Asian Giant Hornets (I'm sure we all want more of them!). Because, again, winters are becoming more mild, devastating colonies of bugs are living through the winter, a time when most of their populations are killed off by extreme cold. Also, the Southern Pine Beetle has made headway into the beautiful Pine Barrens of New Jersey, threatening a very unique ecosystem (much needed in that oh-so-industrial state). And of course, Mountain Pine Beetles have been ravaging the forests of the West for decades.
Animals aren't the only ones feeling the effects of climate change. So are trees and . . . insurance companies. We're having more forest fires than average in North America, and vineyards are pushing Redwood Trees out of their habitat because of climate change. And those insurance companies? They are very worried about the rising costs associated with losses from climate change related events.
We're not done. There's more. You may think that we humans are ingenious enough to escape the harsh realities of climate change, but these climate refugees aren't. Sometimes climate change beats you to the punch. How can "human ingenuity" stop the climate from taking away these indigenous people's livelihood? How can "human ingenuity" protect the very ground upon which we stand with rising sea levels!? Perhaps we humans need to a be a bit more humble? No? Then those Northeasteners better start buying more boats and canoes! You can count on more and more devastating consequences from storms like Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy was not a deadly storm in-itself; it was only a category I hurricane when it hit the northeast. What made it so devastating (to animals, the ecosystems, people, and the northeastern economy) was its 13 FOOT storm surge, which has everything to do with rising sea levels (which has everything to do with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases). Some local mayors and planners are so fed up with the political wrangling of climate deniers (who are mostly Republicans, conservatives, and tea-partiers, by the way) that they're trying to take matters into their own hands.
We mustn't also forget evidence from our glaciers, the Arctic, and Antarctica. Ice on the Antarctica peninsula is melting 10 times faster than it did 600 years ago. A large, inland glacier appears to be melting at alarming rates as a warmer than average ocean flows beneath it. What about the Arctic? Well it continues to set records for lowest amounts of sea ice—2012 holds the record; 2007 before that. And those beautiful glaciers of the Western Hemisphere? Melting.
Now if you regularly follow climate-change-denying trolls, then you've probably heard some of their counterarguments. Science junkie Donald Trump, for example, recently tweeted that those recent "record lows" in the States prove that global warming is "bullshit." He should have called me, though, because I haven't been able to ski out here in the Sierras where the snowpack is currently at 16% normal (last year sucked, too). Or maybe you've heard people claim that the ice cover of Antarctica is actually growing. Then read this article, where scientists think they have a plausible theory: climate change has resulted in stronger winds near Antarctica—while these winds do increase ice cover in some parts of the continent, overall, there is still a net loss of ice mass.
Perhaps you've heard the climate-change-denier argument that there has been no warming during the past 15 years? Well, that's partly true, in that it's a highly selective fact, cherry-picked out of 1000s of years of data. The people who crafted these nifty argument glibly ignore every year of data before 1997. They also (purposefully?) forget to mention that, despite average temperatures basically plateauing for the past 15 years, the first decade of the 21st century was the hottest on record—temperatures might not have broken new records, but they also have hovered around one of the hottest years ever recorded (1998). Climatologists and Oceanographers also believe that they have a plausible theory for the pause in rising temperatures, which you can read about here and here.
Perhaps I've gone on too long for now. Let's end with this: 99.99% of scientists who study the effects of global warming AGREE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED OCCURRING. In the past year or so, as that article states, 1,999 peer-reviewed articles shared evidence explaining the phenomena of climate change; one presented evidence casting doubt upon the reality of climate change. And more than likely, we humans are largely to blame for these recent bout of global warming. Nevertheless, some will still maintain that these scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy. But really? Are you willing to believe that thousands of scientists around the world (most of whom do not even know each other) have been able to successfully lie to the public this long without anyone coming forward? It's similar to my friend Doug Corbitt's reasoning for not believing that 9-11 was an inside job. "Which is more plausible," he asked me once. "That a few terrorists slipped through the cracks of our security apparatus and caused a devastating tragedy? Or that dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of US personnel and civilians participated in this inside job without anyone yet coming forward?"
So what's more plausible? That climate science is junk, or "bullshit" as the Donald calls it? Or all these reasons I've pulled together that suggest something's amiss with our climate?
