In a major legal blow to President Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by Mr. Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.
The decision, by Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, concluded late Friday that President Barack Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawal of about 1120 million acres of Arctic Ocean from drilling “will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.” She wrote that an April 2017 executive order by Mr. Trump revoking the drilling ban “is unlawful, as it exceeded the president’s authority.”
The decision, which is expected to be appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, immediately reinstates the drilling ban on most of the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska, a pristine region home to endangered species including polar bears and bowhead whales where oil companies have long sought to drill. It also has broader implications for Mr. Trump’s effort to push drilling across the American coastline and on public lands.
Specifically, the Arctic Ocean drilling case could give legal ammunition to opponents of Mr. Trump’s efforts to roll back protections for two million acres of national monuments created by Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton.
With each passing day, the news is filled with updates on the success of the transition toward a renewable energy future. Some may detail certain obstacles while others break the news regarding either a private entity or government moving (or making a commitment) toward achieving a non-zero percentage of their energy economy on clean (renewable) energy. This reality is not new.
Neither is President Trump's inability to realize that 'rolling back' environmental laws put in place by the Obama Administration takes skill (and reason/logic) to reverse. Congress will have to act at the very least. Within that act will have to be a good reason to repeal the law put into place. I have previously stated on this blog site the fact that if a rule is to be changed, the replacement has to be better than the previous law.
Which is to say that the law needs to be even more environmentally friendly than the previous proposal to be passed. Otherwise, the existing law stays in place and is continuously challenged in courts -- as has been the case for the Trump Administration over the last two years. I try hard to explain that rule to everyone with whom I meet and discuss the 'rollbacks' that supposedly have been accomplished by the Trump Administration.
The reality is stated in the article above that the Trump Administration has failed miserably on at least 40 accounts to persuade courts to reverse or 'rollback' a given environmental rule put in place by the Trump Administration. These decisions have been in line with the current standards set in place by Congress. Which should surprise no one including the President of the United States. We will next have to see what Congress says about the issue at hand.
So far Congress has been willing to hold bipartisan hearings this year on the critical issue of climate change. Furthermore, Congress recently wrote a letter to the Director of the Department of the Interior, asking him to not drill for oil off the coast of Florida. That should be a significant indicator to President Trump that his attempts to 'rollback' any Obama Administration's environmental regulations (at least the majority of them) is not an accessible route to go down.
Of course, we are dealing with a non-traditional President of the United States currently. The newspapers should keep up the great work at reporting on such failures. Otherwise, a person might be led to think that a 'rollback' is possible without Congress. The reality is that even Congress is batting for a renewable energy future. Although the timeline might be debatable. Nonetheless, a clean, renewable energy future is coming. Stay tuned.
Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the realization that by 2045 California will be a net zero (carbon neutral) economy/state. That rocked the news for a while, and news circulated about the transition. Speculation as to whether that transition was even possible came from the conservative side of the state, whereas the more liberal side of the state claimed that the law was not enough to make the Paris Agreement targets.
Further criticism circulated in the news regarding Governor Brown's treatment of the fossil fuel industry. Critics charged that he was not being tough enough on them. These critics included those in favor of shutting down Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility located in Porter Ranch, California (the Valley). The following news from Mayor Garcetti last week in an article from the 'Los Angeles Times' titled "Los Angeles ditches plan to invest billions in fossil fuels, Mayor Eric Garcetti says" outlined the plan to achieve transition away from fossil fuels:
Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas.
“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.”
“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.”
The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.
This comes at the news from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to the Mayor's office regarding the cost associated with repairing (rebuilding) the seven water cooled (ocean cooled) natural gas power plants along with three other plants at a cost of $3.8 billion. Whereas the cost to rebuilding the three other plants with solar and energy efficiency would be $2.2 billion. The time has come to transition toward total (carbon neutral) clean energy.
The Mayor has challenged LA DWP with the task and he is right to do so. Not just to make incremental adjustments. A new leader should be bold and insist on LA DWP moving at another speed, preferably WARP speed compared to their normal GOVERNMENT speed -- which is filled with obstacles and potential funding limitations. I commend Mayor Garcetti for taking a bold action step which is in line with Germany and other nations around the world. I have written on the obvious fact that the transition toward renewable clean energy is inevitable. Plus, the capital available for investment was small a few years ago, but has been growing over time.
European nations are taking bold steps to change their dependence on dirty energy. China has liberated us with the ever dropping price of solar. Solar is dropping in price as we speak. In a few years, photovoltaics will be a dominant source of energy generation. Clean solar photovoltaic energy is on its way. Current limitations in the renewable energy sector which are screamed by the opposition are 'STORAGE'. How are we (as a nation) going to efficiently store the clean renewable energy to meet off hours demand? Batteries? More research needs to be done, but is not far off.
Both the government and the private sector are racing to meet the demands of the future transition toward renewable energy. A sustainable environment is what is being asked of our nation's residents. Now, both the private sector along with the government need to make this happen. Typically, throughout history, when the pressure is applied to an industry, change happens. In this case, a range of industries are responding to a global pressure and similar to the improvements which are made during war time, the current global investment is exciting and should yield some amazing results.
Imagine that you just joined congress, the year is 1955. The nation just experienced a landmark court case 'Brown v. Board of Education' -- 'separate but equal'. Could you predict that over the next 59 years of your service on the nation's capital, you will experience the following events: the creation of the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, the very contested court case 'Roe v. Wade' (abortion rights), destruction of the Berlin Wall, the rise of digital technology, and finally, a bipartisan public acceptance that climate change is not just real but is man-made -- WOW.
Who is John Dingell -- Briefly?
Over the past few days, there have been historical accounts all over the internet describing Senator John Dingell. One article of interest with a brief but concise historical account of John Dingell recently appeared in 'Politico' titled "You’re Living in the America John Dingell Made" -- which accurately reflects the contributions made to the nation on behalf of the 'Junkyard Dog of Congress' ( a moniker attributed to him by the 'Detroit Free Press'). His love of the nation was unparalleled and reflective in his 59 years of service in congress. There are two paragraphs out of the article which is worth reading but highlight the enormity of his contributions to the nation:
Modern America is as much a creation of John Dingell’s life work as anyone’s. If you or a parent or grandparent have relied on Medicare or Medicaid; if you’ve seethed about the lack of gun control; if you’ve cheered that segregation of public places is illegal and employment discrimination is banned; if you’re thankful for the continued existence of the U.S. auto industry; if you’ve raged about gas-guzzling cars contributing to climate change; if your health insurance is purchased on the Obamacare exchanges; if you’ve swum in lakes or rivers or oceans free from toxic pollution; if you’ve drunk a glass of or bathed your children in tap water with confidence that it’s free from contamination; then John Dingell played a role in your life.
Then followed later in the article by the second shown below:
Among the legislation he authored or led the charge in passing: the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Air Act of 1990. He worked to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which resulted in a bruising primary fight and the burning of a cross on Dingell’s lawn for the second time in his life (his father had been an anti-Klan activist, and even as an old man, John Jr. remembered being 5 or 6 years old and looking out the front window of his family’s home to see a flaming cross). “Of all the bills I’ve played a part in helping pass into law,” he wrote in his 2018 memoir, The Dean, “that remains the one I’m most proud of.”
The reason why I chose the two paragraphs above were to show the inevitable touch of John Dingell in all of our lives (to some degree) along with his remarkable care for the environment. As stated, he authored or played a pivotal role in passing the following environmental acts: (1) Clean Water Act of 1972, (2) the Endangered Species Act of 1983, (3) the Water Quality Act of 1965, and the Clean Air Act of 1990.
I was struck to see the legislation (issues) for which he has been fighting for are still in contention to this day. Modest improvements have been made, but there has been a large struggle for change over the past few decades with regard to saving the environment and the planet for that matter. He has not always sided with environmentalists either. Although, in sum total, he has fought vigorously for the environment. Currently, we are at a cross section where change toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuels while increasing our usage of renewable energy sources is front and center stage.
Green New Deal?
Recently, a new resolution titled "Green New Deal" has been circulating in congress over the last week. First, the "Green New Deal" is arriving in congress at an unprecedented time in history. Although, the rise of environmental policy has been emerging over decades in congress with Senator John Dingell pushing forward the addition of new regulations to move the needle of progress a tiny bit further. Currently, we are living in an unprecedented time in history. I will come back to this fact shortly, but let's return to the initial reaction of the unveiling of the "Green New Deal."
"I really don't like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of 'let's hop a train to California,' of you're not allowed to own cows anymore!" Trump said at a large rally Monday night in El Paso, Texas.
"It would shut down American energy, which I don't think the people in Texas are going to be happy with," Trump said elsewhere in the speech, eliciting cheers from the audience of more than 5,000. "It would shut down a little thing called air travel. How do you take a train to Europe?"
Trump appears to have seized on a line from an informal page of FAQs about the Green New Deal, released last week by Ocasio-Cortez, one of the resolution's co-sponsors, which specifically referred to cows and airplanes.
The blowback and support for the 'Green New Deal' is reported by Politico Energy' as follows:
A GREEN NEW DAY: The Green New Deal resolution sets out aggressive goals to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions in a decade, as well as a broad set of other transformative economic changes. Michael Grunwald makes the case that even though enacting would be impossible, the resolution still has two useful purposes for Democrats.
"It's primarily a political manifesto, a messaging device designed to commit the Democratic Party to treating the climate crisis like a real crisis, pressuring its presidential candidates to support radical transformation of the fossil-fueled economy," he writes. "At the same time, the Green New Deal is a policy proposal — or at least a sketch of one, a way to launch a substantive debate over how Democrats will attack the crisis if they do regain the White House." Read more.
THE NEXT STEPS are now in the hands of House Democrats, who only this week began to reckon with climate change at the committee level. Most House Democrats were quick to laud the goals of the resolution, but soon split on whether they'd formally back the measure, as Pro's Eric Wolff, Anthony Adragna and Zack Colman report.
Enter the select panel on climate change: Members of the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis say they're aiming to use the resolution as a template — even though the panel doesn't have the power to move legislation. Still, they plan to build public support for aggressive policies, as Anthony reports for Pros.
"What I hope this committee does is develop a very ambitious and very comprehensive road map to decarbonize our economy," said Rep. Jared Huffman, a panel member and Green New Deal co-sponsor.
I show the above excerpts not to lead the reader into a debate over the specific wording of the "Green New Deal" or the way out of 'climate crisis' over the next few decades. What I am here to show that the fact that there is a "Green New Deal" being discussed in congress at the moment is a testament toward the current status of the nation with regard to climate change. There is a bipartisan support -- finally -- for change toward a renewable future. Further, there are public statements emerging from Republicans about the need to move toward combating climate change (along with an admission that climate change is caused by man). WOW.
Last week, there were three different hearings in congress over the need to take action to combat climate change. This is unprecedented for both parties to admit publicly that climate change is man made and needs to be dealt with immediately. Of course, no one needs to show the obvious evidence on display around the world: increased frequency of storms, fires, population extinction, landmass destruction for agriculture, etc. -- to name a few.
The fact that there were three landmark hearings last week (and one this week), is a sign that many are stepping up and voicing their support toward a renewable (sustainable) energy future. The actual plan may change, but the direction toward a more sustainable future is inevitable and has gained a large amount of support across congress - which is greatly encouraging.
If you do not listen to any appreciable length of the above testimony, be sure to listen to the opening statements from both democrats and republicans -- which are extremely encouraging. Climate change impacts everyone. The time has come to take action.
Again, the opening statements were encouraging regarding the need to act immediately along with the bipartisan support.
The third hearing has been rescheduled for this week (Feb 13th). The House, Science, Space, and Technology Committee is holding a hearing titled "The State of Climate Science and Why it Matters." Bipartisan effort shows that finally action is being taken. Not only taken, but taken seriously and publicly announcing the need to take such action seriously -- which is a marked improvement over the last few decades.
Which brings us to the end and final note. Senator John Dingell lived until the ripe age of 92. As stated above, his life was full of great adventure and change. Congressional change which will has helped and will shape our society for decades to come. Environmentalists such as Senator Dingell have paved the way forward by laying the difficult initial ground. Just because there is opposition, the following shows that we (as in the U.S.) is late to the game and implementing action:
JOHN DINGELL DIES AT 92: Former Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell Jr., the longest-serving member of Congress whose tenure stretched from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, died on Thursday at 92. ME offers condolences to his family, and is reminded of the prescience of his take on how the fight over climate change would unfold.
He warned in 2008 that Congress needed to act on climate change because combating it under the Clean Air Act could be a "glorious mess." (Pros will recall ex-EPA chief Scott Pruitt frequently cited that phrase to help justify his deregulatory agenda.) "It seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action, litigation upon litigation, and a lack of any kind of speedy resolution to the concerns we have about the issue of global warming," he said at a hearing that year.
His prognostication proved correct. When cap-and-trade failed to pass Congress, the Obama administration turned to existing CAA authorities to target greenhouse gases. Now — 11 years after he said EPA would be "tarred and feathered" if it tried to tackle climate change on its own — Obama's landmark carbon rules for power plants and autos have been blocked in the courts and are being rolled back by the Trump administration. "Structuring a comprehensive climate change program is a responsibility for the Congress," Dingell said in 2008. He died just hours after congressional Democrats unveiled their Green New Deal.
As I have written before on these pages, change is inevitable considering the forward momentum of the international governments. The investment capital is present and growing to match the need. The workforce is present to match the need. Elevating skilled labor to match the renewable energy sector demand will enable previously back breaking jobs to be changed out with new jobs -- jobs which match the changing technology landscape of the future. As automation plays a greater role in our society, the skilled labor can continue to educate to do more complicated jobs. Jobs such as monitoring and troubleshooting robotic teams - as Amazon does currently.
Regardless, the need for new jobs is present and will be matched by the growing demand of the renewable energy sector. The total overhaul of infrasture in our nation (existing buildings, landscapes, etc.) will require large amounts of labor. Senator John Dingell has laid down to rest in peace. Ironically, he did so after learning that his job here on Earth had been accomplished with a bipartisan deal -- "Green New Deal" being unveiled. He will not be forgotten as his work will play a more vital role as the world moves toward a more sustainable and healthy environment for all humans to live. Thank you Senator John Dingell.
Last November, voters came to the polls in America and voted to change the House of Representatives from a republican majority to a democratic majority. Over the last two years, the erosion of the federal agencies oversight to enforce regulations to protect Americans from harm by corporate entities has ensued without major obstacles. Which is problematic for important issues such as climate change -- which spans over decades not just one election cycle. Although, action needs to be continuously optimized by encouraging our elected leaders in Congress to have our best interest in mind and keep steering toward sustainable goals which have a positive effect on our planet looking into the future.
One such plan that has emerged with the change of the majority on Capitol Hill is the Green New Deal. Over 600 environmental groups have written to express support for the Green New Deal and work toward finding solutions in general by forming committees along with passing legislation. Negotiations are starting to happen which is encouraging to say the least. Whenever I read about a large number of organizations sending letter to elected officials, I am alway curious about the content of such letters. What do elected officials receive in letters in the form of information/persuasion toward their argument? That is what this short blog post is about - persuasive content.
Re: Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change
Dear Representative:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we are writing today to urge you to consider the following principles as the 116th Congress debates climate change legislation and momentum around the country builds for a Green New Deal. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned, if we are to keep global warming below 1.5°C, we must act aggressively and quickly. At a minimum, reaching that target requires visionary and affirmative legislative action in the following areas:
Halt all fossil fuel leasing, phase out all fossil fuel extraction, and end fossil fuel and other dirty energy subsidies.
The science is clear that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground. Pursuing new fossil fuel projects at this moment in history is folly. Most immediately, the federal government must stop selling off or leasing publicly owned lands, water, and mineral rights for development to fossil fuel producers. The government must also stop approving fossil fuel power plants and infrastructure projects. We must reverse recent legislation that ended the 40-year ban on the export of crude oil, end the export of all other fossil fuels, and overhaul relevant statutes that govern fossil fuel extraction in order to pursue a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.
Transition power generation to 100% renewable energy.
As the United States shifts away from fossil fuels, we must simultaneously ramp up energy efficiency and transition to clean, renewable energy to power the nation’s economy where, in addition to excluding fossil fuels, any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies. To achieve this, the United States must shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier. This shift will necessitate upgrading our electricity grid to be smart, efficient, and decentralized, with the ability to incorporate battery storage and distributed energy systems that are democratically governed. In addition, Congress must bring the outdated regulation of electricity into the twenty-first century, encouraging public and community ownership over power infrastructure and electricity choice, as well as permitting distributed energy sources, including rooftop and community solar programs to supply the grid.
Expand public transportation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles.
As the transition away from fossil fuels occurs, our transportation system must also undergo 100 percent decarbonization. To accomplish a fossil-fuel-free reality, Congress must require and fund greater investment in renewable-energy-powered public transportation that serves the people who need it most. The United States must also phase out the sale of automobiles and trucks with internal fossil fuel combustion engines as quickly as possible and phase out all existing fossil fuel mobile sources by 2040 or earlier. Federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.
Harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act provides powerful tools that have proven successful in protecting the air we breathe and reducing greenhouse pollution. It can also serve as an important backstop to ensure climate targets are met. Congress should harness the full power of the statute by setting strict deadlines and providing adequate funding for EPA to carry out all its duties under all applicable sections of the Act, including implementing greenhouse pollution reduction requirements for cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, smokestacks and other sources, as well as a science-based national pollution cap. The Act has successfully reduced many air pollutants and can do the same for greenhouse pollution.
Ensure a Just Transition led by impacted communities and workers.
In effectuating this energy transformation, it is critical to prioritize support for communities who have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy and workers in the energy sector and related industries. We support a comprehensive economic plan to drive job growth and invest in a new green economy that is designed, built and governed by communities and workers. Building new energy, waste, transportation and housing infrastructure, designed to serve climate resilience and human needs; retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy and other resources; and, actively restoring natural ecosystems to protect communities from climate change, are but a few ways to build a sustainable, low carbon economy where no one is left behind during this change.
Uphold Indigenous Rights
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be upheld and implemented, along with treaties, instruments and decisions of international law that recognize that Indigenous Peoples have the right to give or withhold “free, prior and informed consent” to legislation and development of their lands, territories and/or natural resources, cultural properties and heritage, and other interests, and to receive remedies of losses and damages of property taken without consent.
Further, we will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy. Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers.
We look forward to working with you to address the gravest environmental crisis humanity has ever faced, to protect all present and future generations around the world, while centering the rights of those communities and workers most impacted.
Sincerely,
The above letter was signed by over 600 environmental groups. The names of which can be found at the end of the letter hyperlinked -- here. There is no question that if various elected officials on both sides consider climate change to be a threat to our national security (to our planet on a much larger scale), then negotiation needs to start happening soon if change is going to follow in the future.
There are people who do not think that climate change is real or a major threat. As a scientist, I can just defer to a non-scientist's reasoning. Recently, I was listening to a podcast titled "Mike Drop" which was an interview between two former Navy Seals about all aspects of life. Mike Ritland interviews Andy Stumpf about all aspects of life spanning from gun control to climate change. When the topic of climate change came up, here is what was agreed upon (at 3:02:16 into podcast):
". . . I'm trying to close the loop on that yeah ... I mean I would say I'm probably similarly ignorant to it other than the fact that to me common sense would tell you you know basically what you said but then also just ... just take automobiles as an example is that you know if you can shut your garage door, turn your car on and be dead in a matter of minutes like chances are with (Andy Stumpf breaks in with "you know I think you need a hose for that too") ... but you know ... ya I got your fucking hose ... yeah you know chances are that having ... you know hundreds of millions of vehicles billions you know driving ... or if you know is probably not that great for us you know and that's one example"
That was a great example offered up from interviewer Mike Ritland. Common sense would tell you that if you can close the door of your garage with the car still running, eventually, the fumes will kill you. Therefore, having billions of tons of CO, CO2 spewing into your environment are probably not that good.
With that being said, the new change to the House of Representatives seems to be on the right track with the emerging Green New Deal in discussion. A discussion is where change starts to happen. And as has been highlighted in the last couple of years, changes are greatly needed in the direction toward sustainable energy while steering us clear of our dependence on fossil fuels. Keep asking your elected officials to consider clean energy along with the environment when a vote is under consideration on capitol hill.
Climate change is a hot topic issue. Different people fall onto different ends of the spectrum on the 'causes' of climate change. Climate skeptics have held onto the notion that a component attributable to the daily operations of humans on Earth does not figure prominently into the overall equation which represents 'cause.' Whereas, people who believe in the component of climate change attributable to 'man made' are on the other end. In between lie people with varying percentages of the two dispositions.
To address the question listed in the title of the article, Astrophysicist Dr. Michelle Thaller, who works for NASA was interviewed by Big Think produced a video interview titled "Does NASA have any climate change skeptics?" gave the following answer:
Michelle Thaller: Hi Jay. So your question is how widespread is it within NASA that scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for climate change? And this is something that is important to say very, very clearly. I have known and worked with hundreds of earth scientists at many different locations in NASA, all of them, all of them believe that human activity is responsible for the current climate change that we see going so fast it's almost unprecedented. I want you to think about that.
One thing that I take really seriously and I'm very proud of is that NASA is not a political organization. We are scientists that work for the American people. We're funded by taxpayer's money. And what we do is we make measurements. We have many, many different satellites that are orbiting the earth right now they're looking at things like ice on the oceans and at the poles, they're looking for things like vegetation growth and the change of that, ocean level, is the ocean level rising? Yeah it turns out that it is. So we have many scientists all over the planet studying all of the different ramifications of climate change. We understand the causes. There actually is no scientific controversy about that. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is warming our planet.
Now what scientists are researching currently, and they don't all agree about, is what are the most important components of driving climate change. Is it carbon dioxide? Could it be something else like methane? When methane gets released that's an even more powerful greenhouse gas. We don't agree on how quickly things like the ocean level will rise. People have different estimates for how quickly that will happen. So there still is scientific controversy about what the most important aspects of climate change are and how quickly it will go in the future, but there is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change.
Now I started this off by saying that one of the things I'm very proud of is that NASA is not political. And what that means for me is that I cannot advocate for any specific solution to climate change. That's not my job. That's up to policymakers. People might suggest things like having more solar energy or cutting carbon emissions or things like that, but at NASA we really understand that's not us, that's up to the American people, our leaders and leaders around the world. What we do is provide the facts to everybody on the planet. All of our data is actually free to any government, any person, any scientist all over the world that wants to use it. So we all know what's causing climate change, we can't tell you what to do about it but we can say it's time to do something about it.
I particularly like the ending where Dr. Thaller states that her job is not to convince people of the human component (or any other for that matter) which contributes to climate change. What is her job is to present the scientific data and let the chips fall where they may -- on the policy (and human) side. Data speaks for itself. The data shows an upward trend to the overall effects of global warming over the period. That is what the data shows.
Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, science should not be taken for granted. Each of us should aspire to learn at the very least how science plays into our daily lives. Further, we should be concerned when scientific data points in one direction while policy points in the other. That is when the data should be presented again -- or we should revisit the data to remind ourselves of the future. At the end of the day, each of us will show up to the poll or make our minds up regarding 'cause' and 'solutions' to grand issues facing life on Earth. The best we can do is gather as much data on which to base our future decisions on. Happy New Year!
Climate scientists often discuss the alarming amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic. According to an article in the 'Associated Press' titled "Climate change is more extensive and worse than once thought" an enormous amount of ice has melted since 1992 alone:
Antarctica has lost nearly 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992, enough to cover Texas nearly 13 feet (4 meters) deep, scientists reported in June. Greenland has lost more than 5 trillion tons in the same period.
Wow. Really? The author extends help in visualizing the enormous amount of ice melting by providing a metric -- namely the amount would cover the state of Texas in a depth of 13 feet of ice. My goodness. I wanted to follow up with that statement and check to see how the numbers checked out. Below is the analysis.
With the area of Texas in hand, the only remaining parameter needed to find the total volume of water is the 'height'. Although, in our case, we are verifying the statement above regarding the 'height' of ice over a given area (Texas). The expression for the total volume of ice being considered in the article is shown below:
The area of Texas has already been determined by a Google search (as shown above) along with the stated value of 'height' equal to 4 meters. Also, the total volume of ice which has melted is given too. In this blog post, we are verifying the stated values contained in the excerpt. Namely, that the total volume of ice -- 3 trillion tons of ice -- would spread a layer of ice over the entire state of Texas with an height equal to 4 meters.
In order to verify the values in the statement above, we need to do unit conversions of a couple of values above to end up in uniform units. The uniform units of choice is 'meter'. Therefore, to start with, a quick search of the number of square meters in a square mile would yield the following shown below:
For every 1 square mile, there are 2,590,000 square meters. Now we have the area in units of square meters along with a height in units of square meters. The only remaining parameter is volume to convert into units of 'meters' -- for a volume -- cubic meters. The volume of ice is stated in the excerpt above in units of 'tons' - which is a unit of 'mass'. In order to convert from a mass to a volume, the conversion factor used is the substance's density -- the amount of mass in a given volume.
In order to determine the density of ice, we simply type into a search engine: What is the density of ice? The following appears as shown below:
The density of ice is 0.92 grams/cubic centimeter. Since there are 100 centimeters in a meter, then there are 100 meter x 100 meter x 100 meter (volume = length x width x height). Therefore, the density of ice is equal to (0.92 gram/ cubic centimeter) x (1,000,000 cubic centimeter/cubic meter) = 920,000 gram/cubic meter.
To convert the mass in units of 'ton' to mass in units of 'gram' the conversion factor needs to be known. Consulting a search engine with the following question: How many grams are in a ton? The answer is shown below:
The answer indicates that in a ton of ice, there are 907,185 grams of ice. An expression for the density of a given substance is shown below:
The density as indicated by the expression above is the amount of mass in a given volume. In our case, the density of ice gives us a conversion factor to use to convert a 'mass' of ice into a 'volume' of ice -- which is part of our intention in verifying the above statement from the news. Given that information (values) and expression for density, the volume can be obtained by dividing the 'mass' of ice by the 'density' of ice (conversion factor) as shown below:
A total of 3 trillion tons of ice was reported to have melted in a given time. But wait, where did the number in the expression above -- 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams -- in the numerator (number above the line in the fraction) come from? That is the converted mass of ice - 3 trillion tons - expressed in units of 'gram' rather than 'ton'. In order to use the number in the expression above, a unit conversion was needed. The conversion is shown below:
Using the determined conversion factor above of 907,185 grams to every single ton, the total amount of grams in 3 trillion tons of ice is equal to 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams. This is the mass which was used in the equation to determine the volume above.
Next, in order to determine the height of spreading this enormous amount of ice over the entire state of Texas, an expression from above needs to be brought up -- the height -- as shown below:
Using the area calculated above which is equal to the total size of the state of Texas, the height of the total volume of ice spread over the entire state can be determined as follows:
The answer indicates that if 3 trillion tons of ice were spread over the total state of Texas, the height of the ice sheet would be just over 4 meters -- 4.25 meter. This is in accordance with the answer above -- reported in the news!
Conclusion....
Wow. The above analysis is proof that the author is correct in their assertion of the magnitude of the terrible amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic. Furthermore, the above analysis gives us the ability to reason through the reported numbers to convince ourselves of the magnitude of the situation. Given that some readers might find this analysis mundane, for me, I reason through the content of an article by proving to myself (with my own analysis), that the number is justified to be reported. Nevertheless, the amount of ice is enormous and worth considering thinking about our own unique contribution to the scale of the issue. Eventually, the problem will have to be dealt with in the near future.
Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept. Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement. Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum. Why? Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true? To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions. Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President. What is the AMS?
The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.
With a historical context as follows:
Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.
The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.
There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.
There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.
You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.
The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Keith L. Seitter
As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust. The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring. Scientific evidence is ignored? Amazing.
The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed. How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment. I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented. That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education, just looking at the world around us. As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:
Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).
The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious. This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research. Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.
