ericgrimsrud

Whenever  I observe an elected politician doing the bidding of well-healed corporations at the expense of the general public, I begin to suspect that there might not be any good reason for their actions other than the fact that their future livelihood might depend on the generosity of their corporate friends.  Such behavior can be entirely legal if carefully done, and due to the recent Citizens United ruling of our Supreme Court, is now even more likely than ever to occur.  It should not be surprising, therefore, to see that a few such Judas Goats among our elected officials get properly trained – that is, to lead their herds to slaughter for their own personal gains.  I am therefore wondering if Montana’s new Congressman, Ryan Zinke, is about to provide us with an excellent example of this phenomenon.

As reported in a short news release in the Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana, of July 10, the Obama administration is presently trying to correct what it believes are inappropriate sales of Montana coal deposits – by which the coal companies involved are attempting to avoid paying the State of Montana the full value of those deposits. In defense of their actions, the coal companies point out that the laws they are abiding by have been on the books since 1980. What this article failed to point out, however, is how the Citizens United ruling – which allows unlimited campaign donations – has changed everything – in favor of the well-healed. .

Ironically, one of those most strongly resisting a change in those now outdated 1980 laws is Montana’s own congressional representative, Republican Ryan Zinke, whose recent election to the House just happens to have been strongly assisted by one of fossil fuel corporations involved in the contested sales.  The question now before us, of course, is whose interests is Congressman Zinke serving in this case?  Is it those of the public or those of the corporations?  Surely, the public would prefer to receive the full value of their assets, would they not?  And other than his own self interests, I don’t see any valid reasons for Zinke’s actions in this case.  If there are any, I would be glad to hear what they are and post them on the comments section of this post.  Of course, this offer is also extended to you, Representative Zinke, should you like to send me that list.

For a more complete account of the details of these coal sales, see Thom Hartmann’s recent article at https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/14e4bfbfc02f198d.

In it, he provides the financial details of the sale and offers a creative, if also humorous, solution.  That is, since large corporations now have the right to donate unlimited amounts to the election of public officials, we now also need an analogous investment mechanism by which individual citizens can also get a “piece of that action” via their smaller investments in creative financial products such as a “Zinke Fund”, for example, that looks for new ways to give away public assets to private interests.  As Hartmann points out in the Zinke example, the “returns” for such “investments” in our “public servants” can be extraordinarily high.

Toon of the Week, thanks to Union of Concerned Scientists

We hear lot from our country’s fossil fuel corporations about the great need of our country to have our very own supplies of oil so that we are not dependent on foreign supplies.  OK, but then along come articles such as the one appearing this morning in the Washington Post  (see it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/wp/enterprise/lifting-the-crude-oil-ban-would-reinvigorate-u-s-economy/  )    that tells the larger story concerning our oil corporation’s real interests.

This article, entitled “Lifting the crude oil ban would reinvigorate the US economy” is provided by the ConocoPhillips oil corporation and is all about the EXPORT of our oil and has nothing to do with saving it in order to establish our independence.   So please do have a close look at this article and the next time you hear one of these corporations tell you about our need to become oil-independent  you should tell them, OK, but then let’s save that oil within our own country’s borders and, for that purpose, why not just leave most of it in the ground until it is needed here.

Just for emphasis in your statement to them, you might want to inject a “STUPID” in there somewhere, but I myself don’t think that word applies here.  These guys are not stupid with respect to the promotion of their product.  They just hope you are.

In my previous post, I provided an “exam” that I had made up in an attempt to inject a bit of humor onto this blog.  In the process, however, I received some serious questions concerning one of the figures I had used.  Therefore, I am now going to use this “teachable moment” for providing an explanation of that figure, which is shown again below.  In order to digest what is about to follow, a few brain cells will have to be temporaritly dedicated to the task.  Because of the central importance of this figure, however, I can assure anyone who has some interest in the science of climate change that they will feel rewarded for their efforts. This figure really does provide the essence of what we are up against.

This figure shows the concentration of carbon dioxide thought to have been present in our background atmosphere over the last 800,000 years. All but the most recent of these measurements came from an “ice core record” provided by the EPICA Dome C research station located on a remote polar plateaus of Antarctica, about 1,300 miles from the South Pole and managed by a consortium of European countries.  The CO2 trapped in the air pockets of that very long ice core are assumed to reflect the CO2 content of the Earth’s atmosphere at the time when the snowflakes that led to that bit of ice were first formed and settled to the ground. The age of each cross section in the ice core can be determined by counting the number of visible “rings” from the top of the core.  These rings are formed by the increased transport of dust to the Antarctic continent during every summer season.

The reason for including this figure in the exam referred to above was to show the extremely sharp rise in CO2 observed during the Industrial Age at the very right edge of the graph where CO2 rises sharply from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.  Nevertheless, most of the questions I received concerned the rest of the graph in which the CO2 level is shown to have risen and fallen several times between about 180 and 280 ppm over the 800,000 year time span.  The bottoms and tops of these oscillations are known to be associated with the glacial and the interglacial periods, respectively, of the last 800,000 years with the last interglacial period in which we now live (called the Holocene) starting only about 12,000 years ago. The cause of these oscillations in and out of glacial periods is now well-known and will be explained in the remainder of this post.

A quick summary:  These oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods are caused by three factors.  One is the exact position and orientation of the Earth as it rotates around the Sun.  Another is the decrease or increase in glaciation on the Earth as it either warms or cools.  The third is the emission or absorption of carbon dioxide as the Earth either warms or cools.  For more details of each of these factors, read on.

Over the last 50 million years, the Earth has been cooling and changing from the hot “water world” it used to be with sea levels about 70 meters higher than today. Due to plate tectonics, the continents of the world have also been drifting northward. India, for example, was an island in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) 60 million years ago and drifted northward until it rammed into the continent of Eurasia in the northern hemisphere (NH).  As a result of this drift, a majority of the Earth’s total land mass today is in the NH with oceanic surfaces more prevalent in the SH. As we will see, this fact, along with the detailed way in which our planet rotates about the Sun combine to cause the glacial / interglacial oscillations shown in the first figure.  So how exactly does our planet rotate about the Sun?  That question will be addressed next.

The path of the Earth’s rotation about the Sun is defined roughly by a circle which the Earth traverses once each year.  Simultaneously, the Earth spins about its rotational axis once each day.  If that was all there was to the Earth’s orbit, however, there would have been be no glacial to interglacial transitions and the Earth would have had the same climate year after year during the last million years.  The fact is, however,  the detailed motions of the Earth relative to the Sun also include three minor twists and turns that are caused by the gravitation pull of the other planets in our solar system.   These minor perturbations cause the natural climate changes we are trying to understand here and are called the Milankovitch cycles in honor of the Serbian mathematician who correctly predicted them back in the 1920’s.

One of these minor perturbations is to the orbit taken by the Earth. Its nearly circular path actually changes continuously between circular and slightly elliptical.  The other two variations concern the rotational axis of the Earth. The angle of its tilt relative to the Sun continuously changes by a few degrees and it also wobbles (precesses) continuously. For more details concerning the Milankovitch cycles,  I will refer you to Wikipedia.  For our purposes here we only need to know that these subtle changes in our planet’s motions create continuous alterations in how our Northern and Southern Hemisphere is irradiated by the Sun.  For example, whenever these minor orbital effects cause the north pole to be pointed more directly towards the Sun, the summer season then experienced in the NH will, of course, be somewhat warmer than usual. More on the importance of the NH’s summer later.

Next, we need to think about the extent of glaciation that exists throughout the Earth at any point in time.  This has a large effect on the Earth’s temperature because incoming radiation from the Sun is effectively reflected back into space if that radiation strikes a snow or ice covered surface and tends to be absorbed if it strikes either the ground or the surfaces of the oceans.  We call the fraction of sunlight reflected  the “albedo” of the Earth.  The total albedo of the Earth in its present condition, for example, is about 0.30 indicating that 30% of incoming solar light is reflected back to outer space.  Therefore, increased glaciation of the Earth will  increases the reflection of incoming sunlight and this, of course, will cause the Earth’s temperature to decrease.

Next, note that because the NH has much more land mass than the SH, the total changes in the extent of glaciation on Earth at any point in time will depend largely on what’s happening  the NH – where between glacial and interglacial periods the southern extent of glaciation over North America, for example, changes from the position of Kansas in the USA to the Arctic coast line of northern Canada.  Similarly large changes in glaciation also occur over the continents of Europe and Asia during a glacial to interglacial transition.  The SH, by comparison, does not have such vast land masses over which large changes in glaciation can occur. None of Australia is never covered with glaciers and all of Antarctica is always covered with glaciers.  Therefore, there is relatively little change in the extent of glaciation over those two continents of the SH and neither one contributes significantly to the the Earth’s total changes in albedo as it moves between glacial and interglacial periods. Thus, it is in the NH where large changes in glaciation and changes in the reflection of incoming sunlight can occur.

If you have followed the sequence of thoughts provided so far, you will now understand why we can declare the following simple rule of thumb:  the direction of glacial / interglacial changes is determined largely by how “nice” the summers are in the NH.  If by changes in the Milankovitch cycles, the NH is being provided “good”  (that is, warmer) summers relative to the average, then the glaciers of the NH will retreat northward. On the North American continent, the southern edge of glaciation might thereby begin retreat from Kansas to Minnesota and through Canada and up to the Arctic Ocean.  These changes in glaciation would then have a large effect on the amount of solar radiation that “sticks” to the Earth versus that which just “bounces off”.  Thus, as more sunlight sticks as the glacier recedes, the Earth gets progressively warmer.  Thus, a relatively small change in the Milankovitch cycles is greatly amplified by its effect on the glaciers of the NH.  Conversely, when the Milankovitch cycles change so as to cause the NH to have cooler than average summers, the opposite events occur. The glaciers of the NH then begin grow and advance southward causing increased sunlight reflection and continuously lower temperatures..

OK, but we have not yet explained the changes in CO2 concentration observed over the last 800,000 years as shown in the first figure and the answer to this question also brings us to the third major influence on the Earth’s temperature.  When the Earth is warming as it comes out of a glacial period, the oceans begin to warm as well, of course, and as they do they release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.  This release of CO2 occurs several hundred years after the initial period of warming caused by changes in the Milinkovic cycles and the Earth’s albedo.  But from that point forward, the increasing level of CO2  provides a third driving force for continued warming during the following 5,000 years required to reach the next interglacial period.

An increasing level of CO2 provides additional warming because CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas (GHG)  providing a “blanket” of thermal insulation between the surfaces of the Earth and outer space.  The GHGs manage to do this by absorbing infrared (heat) radiation emitted by the Earth and its lower atmosphere and then reemit IR radiation in all directions including back down towards the Earth’s surface. Without the GHGs the major portion of the IR omitted by the surface would simply pass into outer space thereby creating a colder world.  The amount of warming thereby caused by the continuously increasing CO2 level is then further amplified by causing increased vaporization of water, as well, which is ubiquitous throughout most of planet and is, itself, a powerful GHG.

As an addition to the above explanations, I will provide another figure showing ice core records obtained again form the Dome C site and also from the Vostok site some 600 miles away which is managed by Russia and provides the same type of information going back about 450,000 years.

xp

This figure shows the temperature deduced from these two ice cores and in the bottom row shows the relative amount of glacial ice thought to be on the planet at all times over the last 450,000 years (deduced from separate geological measurements).

There are several points worth noting in this figure. One is that the temperatures deduced over time at the two different sites are in excellent agreement. Since these sites on the Antarctic plateau share the same background atmosphere, this  result would be expected and lends credibility to the ice core analysis technology  Another point of interest is that the variations in temperature with time closely match the variations of the CO2 level shown in the first figure – as would be expected if the causes of the glacial / interglacial oscillations provided above are valid.  And finally, extent of glaciation or “ice volume” over the entire Earth does, indeed, correlate well with the rise and fall of temperature and CO2 levels, as would be expected if the explanations for the glacial / interglacial cycles provided here is correct.

That will have to do it for now in explaining the first figure shown above and the reason why we have had both glacial and interglacial periods over the 800,000 years.  For more details and addition information, I can refer you to a more complete “short course” on the subject of climate change offered on my main web site, ericgrimsrud.com.  Just go there and hit the short course tab.

Finishing with the BIG QUESTION: in our modern Industrial Age how can we expect to get away with increasing our atmospheric CO2 to levels so much higher than have seen in more than a million years?  The answer to that question is clearly not yet known by anyone who takes the science seriously.  We are presently doing an experiment on the only planet we have and most of our scientists who know a great deal about this think we might very likely be headed out of our present interglacial period in a direction that is opposite of that from which we came. In that case, we will be saying goodbye to mankind’s beloved Holocene and hello to a hotter and unknown period to be increasingly called the Anthropocene – whatever that place turns out to be.

We hear a lot today about the need for increased testing in our public schools.  The reason for these additional exams is commonly claimed to be to ensure that students are learning properly and that the teachers are doing their jobs. If we do that, however, I would like to see a test of the sort provided below in which the student’s potential for fitting into our country’s various professional opportunities are also assessed.  That multiple choice exam might something like the following.

Question #1:  We commonly use numbers to indicate the relative magnitudes of some quantity of interest.  For example, would 400 of something be greater than  280 of those things.

a) yes      b) no       c) I am not a mathematician

Question #2:  We often use graphs to indicate trends in time.  If you were asked to make a plot of the world’s population from say 0 BC to the present, do you think the line produced by those annual data points would curve upward?

a) yes      b) no      c) I am not a statistician

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Question #3:  Take a moment to inspect the graph shown above.  It shows the average surface temperatures of the Earth for the months of May over the last 125 years.  From this graph, do you think that the surface temperatures in May have increased over the time span shown?

a) yes     b) no       c)  I am not a meteorologist

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Question #4:  Take a moment to inspect the graph shown above.  It indicates the level of CO2 in the background atmosphere over the last 800,000 years.  Be sure to note the very sharp spike at the very right edge of the graph.  This spike began about 160 years ago when our CO2 level was 280 ppm and resulted in the current value of 400 ppm.  Note also the the CO2 level had never previously exceeded 290 ppm during the 800,000 year period shown.  We also know, of course, that the Industrial Age began about 160 years ago.  From these data, would you suspect that the recent surge in background CO2 levels to 400 ppm was caused by mankind’s activities during the Industrial Age?

a) yes     b) no    c)   I am not a geologist

Question #5:   Scientists know that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere provide an insulating layer or blanket around the surfaces of the Earth.  If you put on a heavier coat, do you think you would get warmer?

a)  yes    b) no      c) I am not a physician

Question #6:  This exam has admittedly been heavily weighted toward scientific competency, so let’s finish with a question from the humanities.  Some think that the country of England is older than the United States of America.  Do you agree with that statement?

a) yes   b)  no   c)  I am not an historian

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

OK, that is the end of the test and the question now is how do we grade it.  In doing that we must now recognize that the “answer key” depends on where and how the students will fit into the needs of our society and for that reason there should be three different answer keys, as related below:

If we want to produce students that will fit into any one of the following professions – medicine, nursing, pharmacy, optometry, law, dentistry, engineering, construction, research science, insurance, veterinary science, real estate, plumber, acting, janitor, bank teller, auctioneer, hair dresser, electrician, plumber, dancing, forestry, hotel management, coaching, art, music, economics, computer technology, journalist, architecture, business owner, sales, journalism, education, military, farming, mental heath care, airline pilots, social work, ministry, librarian, and homemaking – then the students who answered (a) to each question should be steered towards any of those professions and given scores of 100%.

All is not lost, however, for the others.  For those who selected (c) for all of the questions will find that they are well suited for and indeed needed by the controlling political party of our country – the GOP.  Note, for example, that the present leaders of the House (John Boehner) and the Senate (Mitch McConnell) are both from the GOP and, when asked about their views of the global warming problem both responded with “I am not a scientist”.  Thus, those who answered (c) on all questions will feel right at home in the modern GOP and should be able to find political positions at all levels of government.

In addition, there is also a great future within the GOP for those somewhat braver soles who chose (b) for answers to all of the question.  The present Chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works is none other than James “its all a big hoax” Inhofe, a prominent GOP leader from Oklahoma.  In running the environmental programs of the USA from his office, he is going to need more than “a few good men” in order to carry out his objectives.

So there you go. There will be jobs for everyone in the future. Some will find employment in the traditional professions and others in the “new age” ones being created by our present GOP leadership. In signing off, I will also admit that we will surely need our very best and brightest to fill positions in these new age professions. How, for example, are we going to reduce the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere by developing ever more sources of fossil fuels? And I am sorry that I can be of no help with that one.  I am not a magician.

On this blog (October 2014), and in a chapter of my book (Thoughts of a Scientists, Citizen, and Grandpa on Climate Change), I previously provided some speculation concerning the type of leader that would be needed in order to successfully arrest the relentless advance of global warming.  As an example of such a leader in a different era,  I chose Winston Churchill for the work he did the 1930’s and 40’s before and during WWII.  The reason he was so perfectly suited for the challenge then faced by the Western Democracies was because Churchill clearly understood the profound underlying differences between a free democratic society and whatever it was that Hitler and his Nazi party were offering.  It is true that under Hitler, the trains of Germany began to run on time and it’s economy turned around providing its citizens with jobs and wealth.  Many in England and the USA expressed great admiration for Germany’s accomplishments during the 30’s and wanted to lend support rather than resistance to Hitler. While one does not hear very much about those folks these days, among those enthusiastic admirers were Americans of substantial influence, such as Charles Lindbergh, the famous American aviator, and Joseph Kennedy, then Ambassador to Great Britain and later, the father of an American President and three US Senators.

If Churchill’s dim view of the Nazis had not won out in that era, the rest of the 20th Century would have undoubtedly turned out very differently.  Since the “science” of societal change is accompanied by enormous uncertainties, we don’t know for sure exactly what that end result might have been or exactly how long it would have taken to get there.  Fortunately, however, that experiment was not done because the citizens of Great Britain first and later those of the US had the good sense to recognize a bad direction when they saw one and followed a leader they could rally behind.  Churchill found the common ground with those folks by pointing out the essential intangibles of a good life that are possible only with a democratic form of government.  To a great extent, WWII was fought because of the moral leadership provided by an authority on the subject of self-governance and a population sufficiently well-educated to understand and appreciate what he was talking about.

When wondering if we would ever find another equally prepared moral authority for addressing the even greater challenge before us today concerning global climate change I have not been optimistic.  Frankly, I did not think such a person existed. After all, from what place and experience would such a person possibly come from?  While professional scientists have possessed the greatest level of knowledge concerning the topic, a scientist’s role has traditionally been to advise – and they have clearly done that – rather than to lead – as several  have tried to do.  While our elected officials are expected to be the ones that lead, when they try to – as in the case of Al Gore – they are accused of being politically biased and are more apt to be ridiculed than listened to by the other political parties.  The perfect leader for the war against climate change would have to be someone that is respected by all at the onset and whose responsibility is clearly to look after all people of the world.

And then just when I had concluded that no such a person exists – out comes Francis, the  Pope of the Catholic Church – bearing a forceful stance concerning our “moral obligation to be good stewards of the planet God has given us”.   Perfect!  I should have known. The scientists of the world have clearly provided their distinctively dire predictions.  Climate change is now primarily a moral issue and we finally have the perfect leader for facing it on that basis.  Halleluiah !!  It is Pope Francis who can lead all of mankind to its next “finest hour” and an environmentally sustainable future.

For photos of the two great leaders I have raved about here and another writer’s similar take on all of this, see: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/17/3670578/pope-climate-change-churchill-humanity-needs/

Always looking for some good humor concerning this sobering topic, I happened across the following web site.  Enjoy its two videos and helpful tips, such as the “baby powder shampoo”, the  “sandpaper scrub” and the “dirt bath”.

See   http://www.skipshowersforbeef.com/   and hit the menu tabs at the top.  Learn and Enjoy!

Germany’s economic and military dynamism along with its geographic centrality have posed problems for Germany itself, as well as the rest of the world, during much of the 20th Century. With the dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy at the close of WWI, Germany was absolutely devastated but under the leadership of its infamous Fuhrer rose again to its pinnacle of near world domination only 25 years later and then had to be crushed a second time. Whatever one thinks about the role that country played in the 20th Century, it is clear that Germany has produced people of exceptional will and capabilities. It should also be noted that many of her highly educated citizens accomplished great things both before and after migrating to other countries in response to Germany’s horrific leadership in the ’30s.  For example, most of the scientists who were responsible for winning the nuclear arms race during WWII were actually from Germany and its satellite  countries – having received their educations and initial research experiences there. By 1940, the Allied countries, including the USA and Britain, had not yet produced enough physicists with sufficiently advanced understanding of nuclear processes as to successfully undertake the Manhattan Project. We managed to do that because of the indispensable assistance provided by displaced Germans.  In most other fields as well, including both the sciences and the humanities, German exceptionalism has been evident throughout the 20th Century and now continues into the 21st.

Germany is, indeed, now once again showing itself to be an international leader – whether it is trying to be one or not – just by the example it is settling in facing the universal challenges all countries have.  For example, one of the greatest problems facing all countries today is that of climate change and Germany appears to be doing a better job of responding to it than all other industrialized nations.

I  was therefore struck by an opinion piece I read yesterday in the Washington  Post (see it at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/taking-climate-change-seriously-in-school-in-germany/2015/06/08/bb43fb4c-0e00-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.  While in Germany to cover the G7 conference, Catherine Rampell noted the extensive coverage given to the issue of climate change in Germany’s public schools.  To summarize, she states that it’s like “being on an entirely different planet”, rather than just a different country.  In German schools the global warming issue permeates all courses both in the sciences and the humanities and is not presented as merely one side of a legitimate two-sided issue.  In German schools it appears that science is given its due respect and their students are spared the nonsense commonly accompanying the teaching of this issue in our country

The German public and its political leaders are also apparently not as scientifically challenged as so many in America are and are facing the problem of greenhouse gas warming with much more vigor than we – that is, straight on,  right now, and in their own backyards.  As a result, about 30% of all of the energy produced in Germany is already supplied by the solar panels and wind mills on homes and farms throughout Germany. While the nay-sayers of America say that the alternates cannot power a country, Germans are showing us that they can – even in their relatively northern and cloudy country (they don’t have an Arizona, you know) . All of this reminds me of the ’60s and 70’s when the automobile manufacturers of Japan embarrassed those of the US by making cars that our industrial nay-sayers said could not be made.

Nevertheless, many Americans continue to insist that we are the “most exceptional” of all while the party that most often makes that claim continues its efforts to “dumb down” the coverage of climate change in our public schools.  If those efforts continue, American students might soon have to learn about klimawandel (climate change), as well as the means of fighting it, from German text books rather than the increasingly light-weight offerings of our public schools. In addition, we might again have to rely on German-educated scientists and engineers to help us with the technologies of survival that will be required in a hotter world.

In 1940, Adolf Hitler asked “What is America but beauty queens, millionaires, stupid records and Holywood?” While that rhetorical question was quickly answered in spades by what Tom Brokaw called our “Greatest Generation”, I wonder what would happen if German Chancellor Angela Merkel made the same statement today concerning the battle against climate change. Such a statement by her would clearly be justified. Due largely to the USA’s enormous propensity for self indulgence, it continues to be much more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.  And I agree entirely with President Obama when he says that there have been times when the USA has behaved in a less than exceptional manner. On the climate change issue now is such a time. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that Germany is doing its best to fill the void of exceptional leadership that exists today on this most important issue of our times and wish her well.

In my recent post entitled “The disconnect between modern climate science and St. Olaf College, for example”, as a spokesperson for that modern view, I used the British Scientist, Dr. Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.  If there is another scientist in the world who is even more qualified for explaining that modern view, that person would certainly be our own Dr. James Hansen, the recently retired head of the NASA- Goddard Laboratory for Space Science Research in New York City.  Since I have previously described his background and accomplishments on this blog (see August 2013 post bearing his name), I will immediately move on here to report his latest views on this subject.  They can be seen at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/06/nasa-scientist-climate-change

You will note in this article that Dr. Hansen will be receiving one of Great Britain’s greatest honors for scientific accomplishment tomorrow – even though he is an American.  Therefore, also keep your eye out for his additional comments in that presentation.

The central point you will note in Dr. Hansen’s view, like that of Dr. Anderson, concerns the urgency of the AGW problem.  That is, because we have waited too long for action, we must now bring down CO2 emissions dramatically right now in the present decade and the only way we can do that is by vastly increasing the efficiency of energy use by the most wealthy among us.  That is the only means we have for making needed changes quickly.  While all of the others are important, they take too much time for the needed immediate effect.  Because it is the accumulation of CO2 over time that matters and because we are now in an era of exceptionally high CO2 emissions, it is what we do now that matters the most for the long term – more even than what we will be doing during the next decades.

Get it?  If not, please stop and reread the above paragraph more slowly and carefully.  Its point is what I mean when I refer to the “most modern view” of the climate change problem.  Those that think we are on an acceptable course now and that we can make most of the required adjustments later just don’t get it.  We are now well past the point in which that approach might have worked.

I will now raise another specific issue concerning the need for immediate changes and again will pick on my alma mater, St. Olaf College, as an example of apparently “not getting it” yet.  I suppose I could pick on Carleton College this time instead, but I still feel so badly about beating up on them during my tenure as a St.O. basketball and baseball player back in the ’60s that I don’t want to cause any additional misery on that campus quite yet – maybe later!  (Seriously, however, I would be most interested to learn Carleton’s stance on the issues I am raising here).

So what is that second issue? Two posts ago, you might recall that I suggested that St. Olaf College could be more sensitive than it appears to be concerning the means and frequency of global travel by high-carbon-footprint methods.  In this post I will mention another way that environmentally conscientious organizations could do a lot to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.  That method would be to divest themselves from the fossil fuel industries.  Therefore, I asked St. Olaf’s president if St. Olaf College had divested itself from those industries and, if not, whether it intended to do so any time soon.  His response to both of these questions was “no”.  Therefore, I will suggest that by this measure, also, St. Olaf College might not be sufficiently connected to the latest scientific views of climate change.

While I can imagine why St. Olaf College has taken its stance on the two issues of institution-related travel and the investments of its endowment,  I will not speculate here as to what those reasons are and will wait instead to be informed of them by President Anderson of St. Olaf during a meeting he has graciously agreed to have with me later this summer. During that visit I also look forward to learning about all the great things I am sure St.Olaf College is doing for the education of what will become our next generation of leaders in an increasingly complex world. The main point of my message here is to show that the leaders of our present generation are not doing enough to ensure that those future leaders will have even a fighting chance.

If you don’t already know how to follow the “score” in this “game” against global warming, just keep an eye on what’s known as the “Keeling Curve”. Its the only score that matters.  The rest is just PR.

I had hoped that the Republicans might be able to come up with a 21st Century candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2016 and harbored the notion that you,  Jeb Bush,  might be one.  And then you recently made the following statement:

Look, first of all, the climate is changing. I don’t think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you. It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t even have a conversation about it.

Now really, Jeb, what do you mean by “you can’t even have a conversation about climate science”?  Did you not watch the video I showed in my recent post entitled “A peek at nitwits in positions of power” ?  It showed members of your party having such conversations in the halls of congress .  Better still, if you really do need to have an honest conversation about climate change, why not just call me or thousands of others who know a lot about that subject?  Your comments make me think that you really don’t want to have an honest conversation with anyone about climate change and that by avoiding one, you are simply pandering to the “nitwits” of your party.

And Jeb, when you say you “don’t think the science is clear”, what you are really saying is that you think  the science of climate change is not yet sufficiently clear as to do something about it.  And then you go on to essentially say that it is “arrogant” to think that we do know enough to do something about it – as our own National Academy of Sciences and your own Pope suggests. That one really leaves me disappointed. . What do you think the leaders and citizens of other countries would think of a USA that has such a scientifically retarded Commander in Chief?

Tell you what, Bubba #2,  you just lost the votes of intelligent and responsible Americans who believe that a basic understanding of and respect for science is an essential and minimum requirement for a US President today. I suspect that even your parents would agree.  Most of the Republican offerings for 2016 are such “frozen in time” sorts, like Senator Joseph McCarthy of the ’50s reincarnated.  And now you are also doing your best to cast doubt on the credible scientific institutions of our country that are doing their best to combat what really is a “clear and present danger” to all of us. They sure don’t make Bushes like they used to, it appears,  and that disappoints me because the other current offerings of the Republican Party appear to be living in the 20th Century, at best. Many appear to be reincarnates from the “Gilded Age” of the 19th when the only function of the little bit of government we had was to grease the skids for America’s booming industries centered on coal, oil, rail, steel and lumber. It took a Republican named Teddy Roosevelt to introduce a more “Progressive Era” at the turn of that century in which other aspects of American life were given overdue attention.. .

First, while I have your full attention, please have a look at the following video.  It is about an hour long.  If you don’t take the time to do this, you will perhaps not understand the point of this post.  The video can be seen at http://vimeo.com/62871951

Welcome back. If you did, indeed, watch the video provided above, you are now poised to understand the great disconnect that exists between the very best and latest science available on the subject of man-caused global warming and the general public including its institutions of higher learning.

To summarize the video, a main point made by climate scientist Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research (London) is that “radical and immediate changes” in the lifestyles of those living in the “wealthy” countries of the world are needed if we are to avoid catastrophic temperature rises above two degrees Centigrade.  It is via changes in the carbon footprints of these relatively wealthy inhabitants of Earth that needed reductions in total global emissions of CO2 can be most easily and most quickly made – simply by changes in their lifestyles. While these needed changes include many different forms of energy conservation, those highlighted in this video were the methods and frequency of travel chosen by the wealthy.

Now I should also take a moment here to assure you that Kevin Anderson is not just a second-rate scientist “whistling Dixie” concerning his personal biases on an environmental issue.  He is one of the most accomplished and highly respected leaders in the world in critically important field of climate modeling. Modern modeling is done by taking all of the information available, from observations of the past and from the basic principles of physics and from them constructing predictions of the future. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Research is an organisation based in the United Kingdom that brings together scientists, economists, engineers and social scientists from about a dozen of Britain’s top research universities.

So next, who in the public domain should I (admittedly unfairly) choose for a comparison of their activities against the recommendations of Dr. Anderson?  While almost any American organization in the domains of business or education would do, I am going to “pick on” St. Olaf College of Northfield Minnesota here simply because that college happens to be my own alma mater and that of numerous relatives going back to my grandfather, Lawrence Grimsrud, who graduated in 1899. Thus, I am picking on St. Olaf College here because it is “my own” so to speak,  just as when I require a brunt in the telling of my favorite jokes, I usually select either “Norwegians”, in general, or “Ole”, in particular. With this self-effacing approach, I believe that I am less likely to offend someone.

OK, so now let’s use St. Olaf College as an example of an organization that clearly does not yet conform to the recommendations of Dr. Anderson and let’s do that by focusing on the single issue of travel.

St. Olaf is appropriately proud of its extensive “Studies Abroad” programs. A large fraction of its students in all majors take courses in which professor-led trips to distant places are involved.  Even its basketball team now travels to Europe during the summertime apparently because their BB schedule during the academic year diminishes their access to St.O’s studies abroad programs.  I was also a BB player while at St.Olaf and have provided some financial support for this new travel program.

In the Spring 2015 issue of the St.Olaf magazine, there is a short article entitled “Why do we travel” reminding us of the obvious, undisputed and time-honored benefits of travel.  It goes on to describe one specific course that recently took faculty and students to Germany where they studied the cultural effects of the Reformation.  Then the article described two upcoming trips offered to St.Olaf alumni, one to the Bay Area of California and another to the Holy Land.

Now let me be clear on one point – I think these programs are wonderful and appropriate for those who can afford them. I would like to be on all of them myself.  But what is lacking in the article I am referring to above is another companion article entitled “How do we travel?” In that proposed article I doubt that the modes of transport reported would be in compliance with the recommendations made by Dr. Anderson in his video interview.  That is, I would doubt that most of those going on that trip to the Holy Land or even to San Francisco will be going by lower carbon intensive methods involving relatively slow mass transport on the seas, rail or in buses. Most would undoubtedly be going by high carbon footprint aircraft and then returning as quickly as they can by the same method in order to get back to their busy lives at home – possibly involving another quick trip to another distant place.

At this point, I think I can already hear the criticisms that are likely to come my way as a result of what I just said.  Most common among them will be, “but Eric, you are far too naive.  The world simply does not work that way anymore.”  And I will agree with that comment in advance, while also pointing out the misuse of the word “work” in it.  As Dr. Anderson clearly states, our current way of living, including travelling, is not “working”.  The status quo modes of transport presently being promoted by St. Olaf College and almost all other sizable organizations are not sustainable. Sure we have to do what we have to do, but must also learn how to do it in a manner that does not pass the bill onto future generations.

RADICAL changes are indeed required RIGHT NOW and they can be done right now by changes in the lifestyles of the more wealthy countries, organizations, and individuals of the world. Concerning travel, only low carbon methods should be used and if travel by aircraft is necessary, that aircraft should be powered by bio-diesel fuel which is carbon neutral, but more expensive.

The issue of climate change is no longer just a scientific and/or economic issue.  We now know enough about the science as to make it a MORAL issue. Furthermore, I believe it is now the most important moral issue on the table.  Given the historic commitments of St. Olaf College to moral issues and its service to mankind, it would be most appropriate for St. Olaf College to become an even better institutional example in the fight against global warming by moving to a higher level of “walking the walk”.

If you are still confused about the necessity of what I have recommended here, please have another look at the video referred to above.  Then ask yourself whether you are going to put your trust in the likes of Kevin Anderson or the US’s scientific counterpart, James Hanson, or in the likes of Rush Limbaugh or, more likely, in the moderate and numerous “greenwashers” among us who “talk the talk” but skip the tough parts about individual participation.  If I am in error by favoring Anderson’s recommendations, you can blame that on the excellent education I received at St. Olaf College concerning a wide variety of subjects within both the sciences and the humanities – in which the importance of one’s responsibility and service to mankind was emphasized.

Again, sure we have to do what we have do, but we also have to very quickly learn how to do those things in a manner that does not pass the bill onto future generations. That is, we have to pay for our selected life styles right now in the present as we make our choices. And this can be accomplished. For example, cars, buses, trains and even aircraft can be propelled by carbon neutral bio-fuels or hydrogen whenever that trip needs to be taken. And, of course, we can also consider more carefully whether or not that trip needs to be taken. It’s really a matter of personal will, choices and political action. As far as I know we still have a free market system that responds to the professed needs and preferences of its members. And our educational institutions are in a perfect position for changing those preferences to the significantly higher levels now demanded by the latest science of climate change. We have painted ourselves into the corner we now find ourselves because we have not payed sufficient attention to such warnings in the past. Obviously, I would like few things better than to see my alma mater, St. Olaf College, embrace this opportunity for assuming a higher level of leadership during this most dangerous period of global environmental change. .