Year 3, Month 4, Day 7: The Door Is Open

The Worcester Telegram (MA) has a columnist named Bill Fortier. Sigh:

They say that as the climate warms, the weather will become more extreme, or, in today’s world of instant communication, perhaps we just see it more often. Although it does seem that when we were kids we never saw summer-like, mid-winter thunderstorms like we’ve had the past three winters.

While that is worrisome, I’m sure I’m not alone in saying there is something good to be said about our changing weather.

To wit, it was most enjoyable to go all winter without putting on layers of winter clothes and clunky boots.

And it was great to hear the spring peepers March 13, the first time I have ever heard them before St. Patrick’s Day.

We spent last week in Washington, D.C., where the cherry blossoms reached their peak March 20, the third earliest date ever.

We wore shorts all week, had dinner outside twice and walked on King Street in Alexandria, Va., eating ice cream like we would on a July night. If the climate is changing, bring it on.

George W. Bush said that, too, inviting attacks on our soldiers. Idiots. Sent March 31:

Bill Fortier asserts that people who know “way, way more” than he does cannot state with certainty whether the greenhouse gases we release affect the climate. Actually, they can, and do. Science is silent on whether the accelerating greenhouse effect is responsible for a specific incidence of extreme weather, simply because that’s not how science works — but there is no doubt whatsoever that extra atmospheric methane and CO2 are having radically destabilizing effects.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fortier wonders what’s wrong with a warmer winter. Rhapsodizing over his ability to wear shorts on a March day, he writes, “If the climate is changing, bring it on.” Maybe he should talk to New England’s fruit farmers, whose trees are blooming too early, or ask foresters what happens when there aren’t enough freezing temperatures to destroy the larvae of insect pests.

Bring it on, huh? Climate change is coming, invited or not.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 4, Day 6: Let’s Have Another Cup Of Coffee, Let’s Have Another Piece Of Pie

New Hampshire’s fruit growers are getting worried, reports the Nashua Telegraph:

When you were basking in record warmth last week, farmers were worried. They knew the abnormal weather was making some plants vulnerable when seasonable weather returned.

On Monday night, their fears were realized.

“It got down to 21 degrees in some spots. On apples, we could have lost as much as 10 percent,” said Chip Hardy, owner of Brookdale Fruit Farm in Hollis. “If it had gotten down to 15, we could have lost 90 percent, so we were lucky it didn’t get that cold.”

The problem is that trees and bushes were fooled by a stretch of 80-degree days last week, producing their flowers roughly a month earlier than usual, leaving frost-sensitive buds exposed.

Fruiting plants from apple and peach trees to blueberry bushes and grape vines are vulnerable, as are some decorative plants such as magnolia trees.

We are so fucked. Sent March 30:

Yes, the early spring seems like good news for those who want to get out and bask in the sun. But farmers are right to be worried. When weather is this unpredictable, agriculture is impacted in countless ways, with ripple effects throughout our society. Large monocrops are more vulnerable to extreme weather and invasive insect pests, and food prices inevitably go up as availability goes down.

And yet our society is remarkably resistant to connecting the dots between isolated regional weather events, and the broader transformation of our climate that shows every sign of accelerating into a planetwide disaster. David Brooks’ article downplayed the obvious link between New England’s “winter that wasn’t” and global warming — a connection that we dismiss at our peril.

What is happening in New Hampshire is happening in thousands of regions all over the world; we must wake up to this clear and present danger.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 4, Day 5: My God! It’s Actually A Cookbook!

The Boston Globe, reporting on the readiness of our state’s Junior senator to do the bidding of his paymasters:

Senator Scott Brown joined with Senate Republicans on Thursday to foil President Obama’s plan to strip $24 billion in tax subsidies from the country’s largest oil companies, a stance that Democrats immediately focused on as an issue in the Massachusetts Senate race.

In voting against the bill, Brown contended the measure did not address the most pressing problem.

“I do not support this bill in its current form because it will do nothing to reduce prices at the pump,’’ Brown said.

Which, in a nutshell, is why you (and I) should be donating to Elizabeth Warren. Brown is an idiot. And he’s a Republican.

But I repeat myself.

Sent March 30:

In following the rest of his Republican colleagues in voting to sustain subsidies to oil companies, Scott Brown defies both common sense and the principles of Massachusetts residents. Ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change, our junior senator advocates for continuing our current levels of fossil fuel consumption — loading the climatic dice for a costly and dangerous future of extreme weather.

While Senator Brown’s rejection of environmentally ethical fiscal policy may be antithetical to our state’s values, his vote helps us clarify who he really represents. Unlike Bay State voters, Scott Brown’s big oil constituents get four billion dollars in subsidies and tax breaks every year. That’s seven thousand dollars a minute — a powerful political motivator!

At a time when America should be transforming its energy economy into a model of sustainability, Senator Brown and the GOP offer regressive policies that are both environmentally unsound and fiscally irresponsible.

Warren Senders

Year 3, Month 4, Day 4: They’ll Pry My Light Bulbs Out Of My Cold Dead Sockets…Or Something

The Boston Globe covers the IPCC report:

Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts, and heat waves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a report issued Wednesday. The greatest danger from extreme weather is in highly populated, poor regions of the world, the report warns, but no corner of the globe – from Mumbai to Miami – is immune. The document by a Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges, and droughts.

More of the same. Sent March 29:

The latest IPCC report forecasting greatly increased risks of extreme weather disasters caused by global climate change is sure to surprise no one.

The people who’ve been paying attention to the ongoing war on the environment are already gloomily aware that things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better, given that it’s going to take the planet’s climate centuries or millennia to recover from the past century’s profligate carbon-burning spree.

And the people who believe in a giant secret cabal planning to raise our taxes and outlaw incandescent bulbs are already fully convinced that the IPCC is in on the conspiracy.

Given that science has an impressive record of steadily-more-accurate predictions and a built-in self-correction system — unlike political conservatives, who have been consistently wrong about pretty much everything — perhaps it’s time for our politicians and media to pay attention to the IPCC’s report.

Warren Senders

3 Apr 2012, 1:05pm
Jazz music:
by

leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Doesn’t Get Much Better…

    …than Johnny Hodges and Strayhorn’s beautiful composition “Isfahan.”

    I have recently been watching a lot of concert videos while transplanting seedlings in my office. Last night was a lot of Duke Ellington. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours: playing in the dirt while watching Duke out of the corner of my eye.

    Speaking of which, just for giggles, here’s Duke on “What’s My Line?”

    Year 3, Month 4, Day 3: But They’re So Un-Serious

    The Laredo Morning Times runs an AP article by Seth Borenstein on the most recent IPCC report, headlined “Mumbai, Miami on list for big weather disasters”. Heh:

    WASHINGTON — Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heat waves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists said in a new report issued Wednesday.

    The greatest threat from extreme weather is to highly populated, poor regions of the world, the report warns, but no corner of the globe — from Mumbai to Miami — is immune. The document, by a Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists, forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts.

    The 594-page report blames the scale of recent and future disasters on a combination of man-made climate change, population shifts and poverty.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations, has generally focused on the slow inexorable rise of temperatures and oceans as part of global warming. This report by the panel is the first to look at the less common but far more noticeable extreme weather changes, which lately have been costing on average about $80 billion a year in damage.

    Watch the denialists rise up in outraged hordes to smite algore! Sent March 28:

    It’s certainly possible that the climatologists in the IPCC have it wrong in their predictions of extreme weather and heavy storms. Scientific errors have happened in the past; they’ll happen again. But let’s make a few comparisons.

    Science has a built-in error-correction mechanism. When scientific results are published, people everywhere around the planet try to reproduce the experiments, searching for errors or misinterpretations. Scientific method has become the most potent truth-finding tool in humanity’s arsenal, steadily enhancing its predictive accuracy; the storms of today were forecast by climate scientists decades ago.

    By contrast, those vehemently disputing the IPCC’s findings have time and time again been proven wrong. They were proven wrong about Iraqi WMDs, proven wrong about tax cuts on the richest 1 percent — and they’ll eventually be proven wrong on climate change, too.

    Perhaps it’s time to pay more attention to the people who’ve been proven right.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 4, Day 2: Relax And Float Downstream / It Is Not Dying…

    The Christian Science Monitor runs a Reuters story on a recent study in Nature Climate Change, confirming that yes, we dunnit:

    London

    Extreme weather events over the past decade have increased and were “very likely” caused by manmade global warming, a study in the journal Nature Climate Change said on Sunday.

    Scientists at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Research used physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations to link extreme rainfall and heat waves to global warming. The link between warming and storms was less clear.

    “It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming,” said the study.

    The past decade was probably the warmest globally for at least a millennium. Last year was the eleventh hottest on record, the World Meteorological Organisation said on Friday.

    This is essentially a recycling of my usual irresponsible-media letter, with the addition of the mayfly/sequoia analogy. Maybe the CSM will finally publish me. Sent March 27:

    Given the disconnect between the “if it bleeds, it leads” style of news reporting and the careful and deliberate style of scientific communication, it’s amazing that our media pays any attention whatever to issues of climate change.

    After all, the transformation of the Earth’s climate takes place in long arcs of time: decades, centuries, millennia — while the longest span our media can competently address is the two-year gap between elections. It’s like asking mayflies to comment on sequoias.

    What those climate scientists are telling us, in their careful and deliberate way, is that we’re already in a whole lot of trouble — and if we don’t act rapidly, it’s going to get immeasurably worse. While there’s no doubt that sensible energy and environmental policies are essential, it’s also incumbent on our news media to pay more, and better, attention to the gravest existential threat our species has yet faced.

    Warren Senders

    Year 3, Month 4, Day 1: Do You Know Where Your Fools Are? I Do.

    Three actual scientists are heard in the pages of the Tennesseean, arguing against the newly introduced legislation that would require all kinds of silly-ass nonsense to be taught equivalently in science classes:

    Almost 90 years ago, Tennessee became a national laughingstock with the Scopes trial of 1925, when a young teacher was prosecuted for violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution. With the passage of two bills, House Bill 368 and Senate Bill 893, the Tennessee legislature is doing the unbelievable: attempting to roll the clock back to 1925 by attempting to insert religious beliefs in the teaching of science.

    These bills, if enacted, would encourage teachers to present the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of “controversial” topics such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” As such, the bills are misleading, unnecessary, likely to provoke unnecessary and divisive legal proceedings, and likely to have adverse economic consequences for the state.

    It is misleading to describe these topics as scientifically controversial. What is taught about evolution, the origin of life, and climate change in the public school science curriculum is — as with all scientific topics — based on the settled consensus of the scientific community. While there is no doubt social controversy about these topics, the actual science is solid.

    This one was a bit long, but they had a 250-word limit, so I let myself go a bit. Maybe there’ll be another paper with the same article tomorrow, and I can cut things down. Sent March 26:

    The difference between social and scientific controversy is simple: the former is based on opinion, the latter on facts. Since opinions change with each successive generation, we can safely say our species will keep generating new social controversies for millennia to come.

    Science, on the other hand, builds knowledge incrementally through a process of rigorous testing and analysis. A scientific controversy is created either by a new fact that doesn’t fit the accepted consensus understanding (as J.B.S. Haldane famously said when asked what could falsify evolutionary theory, “Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian”), or by a new theory that offers a more robust explanation for the facts that already exist.

    Neither of these criteria are met by the arguments of climate change denialists. Their cries of “teach the controversy” are disingenuous; shall we teach the medieval theory of humours, phlogiston, or the “luminiferous aether”? These were all controversial in their time, and all have been disproved and relegated to the scrap heap of history.

    Rather, the individuals fighting genuine education on climate change do it for simple and selfish reasons: they don’t wish to be inconvenienced. The corporations funding elaborate misinformation campaigns about global warming do it because they don’t wish to surrender their profit margins.

    The scientific consensus is unambiguous: if we continue our profligate consumption of fossil fuels our CO2 emissions will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, with consequences including rising sea levels, droughts, and extreme weather. Unless we change our ways, our descendants will indeed inherit the wind.

    Warren Senders