A Starting Point for Productive Climate Discourse

Power plantMore than 150 new coal-burning power plants are proposed in the United States. (Jeff Swensen for The New York Times)

The views expressed here on human-caused climate change run the gamut. It’s a hoax. It’s a catastrophe. It’s a crisis. It’s a manageable trend. It can be fixed with a rising tax on carbon. It can be fixed by making people rich. It can be controlled by dumping something in the air or oceans.

To try to rein in and focus the discussion just a bit, I’ve decided to put up this post as a work in progress, aimed at establishing a list of basic facets of the climate and energy challenge that are not in reasonable dispute (with more to come). As I’ve written for years (as in a feature for AARP’s magazine last summer), the yelling has distracted too many people for too long from the core ideas that are powerfully established.

Heaps of scientists would say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already established the scientific foundation for society. Others here (and elsewhere) contend that that effort is tainted by group think. The I.P.C.C. does have faults (as does this blog and just about any other discussion of a complicated heap of science). But, having written about the panel ever since it was created in 1988, I can’t think of any other effort that serves as a better compass for tracking the trajectory and level of understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and options for responding to them.

Still, I like the idea of having our own working list here, in part to shift this discussion away from unresolvable whipsaw debates (over issues like how fast and far sea levels will rise by 2100). This list will provide a foundation for weighing policies on the intertwined issues of climate and energy that make sense given what is well known now, and what is unlikely to be clarified any time soon.

Here’s a beginning:


Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas.
More of it will inevitably warm the planet. Richard Lindzen of MIT agrees. Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute agrees. The gas has a long residence time in the atmosphere so that it builds as long as more is added than comes out through absorption in the ocean or ecosystems (unlike most other emissions from burning fossil fuels, forests, and the like, which dissipate quickly.)

Warmer times have generally had much higher seas and smaller ice sheets
and glaciers. Colder periods have had lower seas and more ice (like the mile-high heap that scoured the knobs of granite in Manhattan’s Central Park 20,000 years ago).

The carbon dioxide buildup is changing the chemistry of surface seawater
, lowering its pH in a way that, in theory, could be harmful to the shell-forming and reef-forming marine organisms of today’s ocean ecosystem. (There’s been very little from the traditional “skeptic” community on this. Have I missed something?)

Coal is still abundant, has helped today’s industrial powers become rich, and is helping poorer countries grow their economies. But it comes with significant environmental and social costs
(scoured landscapes, carbon dioxide, around 4,000 deaths a year in Chinese mines, tens of thousands of premature deaths from respiratory ailments linked to sooty pollution).

Oil is still reasonably abundant and fairly cheap, but comes with a large external price tag
including international conflict, pollution, and (of course) carbon dioxide.

The incineration of tropical forests (most temperate forests are expanding) is bad
for the atmosphere, water supplies and biological diversity.

Growing populations and growing energy demand will greatly increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
in this century without big changes in technology, policy, or behavior.

If everyone turned off all motors and power plants tomorrow, or jumped in Hummers and jacked up thermostats, the climate system wouldn’t measurably “notice” the difference for at least a few decades
(IPCC fourth science assessment). [ADDED 1/14]

Finding renewable sources of energy that are cheap and do not come with significant environmental or security risks or social costs is a good thing
, particularly in a world adding roughly 80 million people a year, and where two billion people today only have firewood or dried dung as an energy choice.

Too many people today are vulnerable to the world’s existing climate extremes
, and widespread prosperity and security are unlikely to be attained without cutting vulnerability even as long-term climate policies are hashed out. Reducing vulnerability to climate hazards will benefit the world with or without human-driven warming.

More to come. What are your choices for this list, and/or challenges to what I’ve put on it as a first take (please include references, links)?

Comments are no longer being accepted.

i challenge anyone to come up with a web site more comprehensive in its enumeration of all arguments attempting to refute the validity of the agw thesis, and, in response, arguments in favor of the agw thesis used to invalidate each of the skeptics’ arguments.

and, yet … i still don’t buy it!

the reason i don’t buy it is that if this was simply a matter of science — and not political activism — such a site would be totally unnecessary.

//www.skepticalscience.com/

Andy, This is a great list. Nicely done!

To Andy,

I hope you will accept this, though I just put it on an earlier thread as well in response to Elizabeth and Steve.

To Elizabeth (#48), you are almost correct–just substitute geography for geology. Thanks for the kind words.

To Steve (#52), I have read Hopfenberg’s article that you cited, as well as the article by Arrow, et al. cited by Hopfenberg, articles by David Pimentel and others.

As you’ve seen already, I don’t disagree with much of what you say, and it is sad that humans seem destined, despite our intelligence, to play out a scenario of reproduction that is much like that of other species. We should know better.

Hopfenberg presents an excellent look at the idea of carrying capacity and ultimatley argues that the food supply will be the critical variable in determining how large the human population will get. He writes that “Again, the data presented here indicate that population will continue to increase as long as food production continues to increase.”

But Steve, none of us really knows how long we can continue to increase the food supply. In 1798 Malthus warned us that population growth was outrunning our ability to produce food, yet the world has grown from less than one billion at that time to more than 6.63 billion today. In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, again warning of dire events to come–mass starvation, etc.–because we could not produce enough food. But since 1968 we’ve added more than 3 billion more people to the planet. Not only that, but such measures of population well-being as infant mortality rates and life expectancies are much better now than they were when Earth had only half as many people.

Though you, Elizabeth, I, and others on Andy’s blog have argued that population growth is a problem, keeping the population growing so far has not been a problem. Repeatedly, predictions of population declines, collapses, etc. have ended up in the round file–more proof that we should listen carefully to people like Nassim Taleb when it comes to making predictions.

Though I believe that population growth is exacerbating a host of problems on our planet, I find it difficult, maybe even impossible, to get even reasonable people to worry much about it. After all, economists, optimists to the core, assure people that we can continue to produce more food. Malthus could not imagine a world of one billion. We are worried now about a world of 6.63 billion. Numerous people argue that ten billion, or even more, can be fed without too much trouble. In fact those same folks will remind us, correctly, that we now have more overfed people in the world than underfed ones. We pay farmers not to grow food. Until quite recently the long-term trend in food prices has been steadily downward, which hardly reflects scarcity.

I would like to end this overly long answer to you, and for others, by quoting again from Hopfenberg:

“It is also accepted that population growth has had a detrimental impact on the quality of human life itself. The biological, social and psychological well being of people worldwide has been negatively impacted by the prodigious increases in populatiion, and the danger of continued increases is well understood. These dangers include diseases that may ultimately control population growth by means of an increased death rate….Addressing the problem of human population growth must include a shift in cultural attitudes, which may well consist of changes in the social, political, educational and religious mindset. This cultural shift must also include the recognition, as the present study makes clear, that the problem of human population growth can be feasibly addressed only if it is recognized that increases in the population of the human species, like increases in the population of all other species, is a function of increases in food availability.” Some of these statements are less than scientific, even if we may agree with them personally.

He ends by quoting D. Quinn, “There is no species that dwindles in the midst of abundance, no species that thrives on nothing.”

The economists would add that “There is no other species capable of increasing its own food supply.” So far, despite the warnings of Malthus, Ehrlich, Hopfenberg, and a host of others, the economists have been right. As I’ve suggested before, the quadrupling of our population since 1900 has been brought about almost entirely by our widespread use of fossil fuels–directly as fuels and indirectly as fertilizers. That has allowed us to expand our food supply at a rate that would have been entirely unthinkable to Malthus.

Biologists all note that there are limits to the growth of any population, and I agree, but it seems to me that until we push those limits much more closely than we now do the human population will continue to grow.

I like the list so far. I am interested in the item on the changing pH of surface seawater. I have not yet seen any comment from the “skeptic” community. (I don’t really like the label “skeptic” for the aforementioned community, as most scientists I know are very skeptical, and bring a healthy degree of skepticism to their work.) I do wonder why you use the phrase “in theory” about harming shell-forming and reef-forming organisms. There has been research published in 2005 demonstrating the effect of increased pH due to CO2 in seawater on some shell-forming organisms.

Here is a link to one study:

//www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JC002618.shtml

I agree there has been much published on the theoretical problems that could occur, but the effects have been also been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

I think that oil being reasonably abundant is a train that is moving fairly rapidly away from us. As I understand it, it is not that we run out of resources, but the marginal cost of getting the next ton/barrel increases exponentially until it is no longer worth doing. The fact that boiling tar sands is now economically viable (at least without paying for the externalities) says something depressing. Also, I think that you need to say something about natural gas.

Lindzen: “The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.”

I fell out of my chair reading this……Lindzen has finally come to his senses!!……Almost

But he still presses on about man’s input…..as if it matters.

There is not just one single thing forcing on the climate. Please try to understand that. There are many things that have caused climate changes in the past – in both directions, and man is now adding heavily to the warming, as is possibly the Earth’s inconsistent orbit (which is due about now).

IT IS ALL CUMMULATIVE AND WE ARE ADDING TO IT!!!!

Don’t try to find a single cause for the warming and don’t fret too much about man’s influence at this point. We were duped by people who cared about nothing more than profit.

Although there were a few, very few, voices in the wilderness telling of future problems from the CO 2, we know that the Fords and the Rockafellers were pretty much just plain stupid about the problems oil and coal would produce in this world.

Just keep in mind that our CO 2 emissions are the only handle on the problem of climate change that we have. Do you think we should throw it away?

Dr. Francis T. Manns. P.Geo. (Ontario) January 14, 2008 · 3:16 am

Ocean pH is not governed by physico-chemical rules. Marine organisms control their calcium carbonate properties organically behind membranes. Increased CO2, in any case evolves from sea water because of inverse solubility. CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. That’s why CO2 trails natural warming. Objective scientists realize that coral, foraminifera and shellfish have deep mechanism that have evolved over 100s of millions of years as CO2 has fluctuated far wider than we see in the atmosphere today. Google Ernst-Georg Beck for a synoptic paper on 180 years of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere, some by Nobel prize winning chemists. The UN IPCC has cooked the books. CO2 was as high as 400 ppm on 1940 before the recent cooling period.

I agree all of Revkin’s list especilly the “Coal is still abundant, has helped today’s industrial powers become rich, and is helping poorer countries grow their economies. But it comes with significant environmental and social costs” and ” Growing populations and growing energy demand will greatly increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ” the “Coal….” is the nowaday China and India’s big problem. In China is building one coal power plant every week, it is terrible reality. I think that Chinese goverment realize it is problem,too, but they could not control their greedy to develop economy depending oo fossil fuel. They want to see high GDP developing, they want to see everywhere in China existing high building anyway the lifestyle like weststyle. They think that these are real prosperity. What kind lifestyle is really good one,Chinese do not think this so much. Chinese goverment also does not show people how sustainable lifestyle is good one, just weststyle life style is their object. I think in chinese centrl and region goverment, the policymakers who realize the envrionmental problems is real problem and basic problem are few, all be attricted by weststyle economic developing. Even in America Repabulican do not realize global warming is very serious issue. “Growing populations ….” is very important problem,too. Because the over population it is, therefore the demand to resource to everything of life is growing. As I mentioned before if all Chinese and Indian spend like Japanese, it will need another extra planet. Both China and India is the biggest population countries and now both of them are developing in high speed then make people in the world realize the cricuial problem of energy. And both of them are developing depending on coal. West countries could not stop them and no right to say please stop your developing using coal because west countires developed depending on fossil fuel,too. If industrial countries want to stop China and India depending on fossil fuel, they should supply them clean energy technoligies, let them directly go to low carbon,green economy developement not same way of west countries. Overpopulation make over energy demand and people want to find energy anywhere and anyway no matter it is drity or clean if they can satisfy them. It is the status of China and India. In order to solve these problems, it is need to control the population problem and surpply them low-carbon and green energy technologies. Otherwise, Chinese and Indian CO2 and population will shake the world.

Here is a CNN news I have linked it before, since it is very important article I world like link it here agian

//edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/12/23/eco.shopping/index.html

Overpopulation and over consumption means one planet is not enogh for our human being. So what we can do? Keep business on usal? or make some change? This makes us deeply thinking.

The underlying theme of the Energy Challenge is “is fossil fuel the best, primary source of power for mankind?”

I would prefer to see nuclear energy take fossil fuel’s place as the primary energy source. Nuclear energy has the least environmental impact. It does not suffer geopolitical distortions (no wars to be fought in the Middle East). No greenhouse gases, no wealth transfers to despotic dictators, 6000 years of fuel ready to be used, and useful radioactive byproducts such as cesium to kill e-coli bacteria poisoning meats, spinach, etc.

We need a rational discourse on the rapidly expanded use of nuclear energy. An available, affordable, and clean energy source.

Here’s another one:
CO2 production and per capita GDP bear a direct relationship.

Mark @ TalkClimateChange January 14, 2008 · 6:34 am

I like your approach. There is far too much unproductive discussion and not enough focus on the real issues.

Still, you would be surprised at some of the arguments that can be found for even the most basic assertions such as Co2 being a heat trapping gas – we see these arguments on the TalkClimateChange forum all the time.

We blogged something last year about how simple arguments can spiral into infinity and end up distracting us from the real issues:

//www.talkclimatechange.com/2007/12/06/co2-good-or-bad-nobody-knows/

You left out how enviornmental hysteria (Just like today with Global Warming) kneecapped the nuclear industry and made us more dependent on a coal power grid. In addition that there are a significant amount of people who are using Global warming as an anti-capatalist anti-american agenda.

This is a good starting point, but I’d like to point out a hidden problem lurking in your point about oil being “abundant”. I don’t think anyone is seriously claiming that we’re about to “run out” – rather, the claim made by the Peak Oil theorists is that we’re at or near peak production. That means, by definition, that we’ve depleted about 50% of the global oil supply.

Once we’re at the peak, demand will outstrip supply – even if we ignore soaring demand from China – which is what’s going on now. Secondly, the oil we’ve pumped so far is the easy stuff – from now on, it gets more expensive to get what’s left, from places like the Arctic Sea, or rapidly dying oilfields.

This is too complex an issue to go into in detail here, but there’s plenty of discussion on the web – just Google “peak oil” and stand back – 4 million hits. The Times to date has scoffed at this problem – I’m hoping you’ll have a more open mind, and at least discuss it.

Three other truths:

“We now have evidence from the Earth’s history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds…we have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air…and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die.” (The Revenge of Gaia)

“But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write: Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure.” (New York Times, Oct. 1)

“A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming…because current global warming is offset by global dimming – the 2-3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.” //www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/29/eaclim129.xml

The paradigm has to change from unfeasible drastic emission cuts, to removing the CO2 from the air. I suggest the low cost method of “biosequestration.” Read my blog at //www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information.

Dear Andy,

In my mind, one of the largest problems we face is the enormous difficulty in changing our attitudes toward consumption. I have lived a total of 19 years outside the U.S., in three different countries, and in none of them have I seen such intense patterns of consumption (although, unfortunately, over the past 20 years, these patterns have been changing for the worse).

In these 3 countries, the cultures focused on spending time with family and/or friends. Naturally, the more time one spends socializing, the less time one has to go to the mall and mindlessly consume.

Not only that, but the more time is focused on family, the fewer social problems (and their attendant economic costs) arise.

A second problem, worldwide, is that of corruption.

For the past 10 years, I have lived in Brazil. In fact, I live in a city out in the middle of nowhere, 8 hours from the beach. Most of the inhabitants of this city are incredibly poor by our so-called standards, yet the main problem in Brazil is not that Brazil is a poor country. In fact, Brazil is an incredibly rich country.

The main problem in Brazil is that all aspects of life are overshadowed by the systemic corruption that permeates even the most minute interaction with the government (federal, state, or municipal).

I would point out that there are very, very good environmental laws here on the books. However, if any official tries to strictly enforce them, he or she is usually murdered. If not killed, then they are bought off.

When I read something about the Bali conference wherein there was an idea to pay Brazil for not chopping down the Amazon rainforest, I was forced to laugh ruefully because any money paid to Brazil would simply go straight to the politicians and the forest would be cut down anyway.

Please note that most all of the world’s important rainforests are located in some of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

It should be noted that corrupt governments are inefficient in the extreme — resources are diverted away from investments in education and infrastructure, absolutely necessary for bringing a country out of poverty and reducing birthrates.

Personally, I do not see any timely solution to the problem of systemic corruption in these countries.

A third problem is the incredible speed with which modern economies are able to switch their agricultural production from food staples to biological fuel production. The massive, abrupt switch to ethanol has caused severe economic damage to the impoverished who must now pay double for milk powder and beans, dietary staples of the poor. These price increases represent a huge step backwards in the march toward alleviating poverty in developing nations.

Here is more:

“We have dumpted (today) another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer,…”

Al Gore speaking before Nobel audience

“The loss of global biological diversity is advancing at an unprecedented pace. Up to 150 species are becoming extinct every day. ”

Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Environment Minister in interview by BBC

“The world doesn’t have enough resources to allow for raising China’s consumption rates, let alone those of the rest of the world, to our levels.”

Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles

“Over the next few decades, we may make the oceans more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years.”

Atul Jain, professor of atmospheric science, University of Illinois

But,our human problem goes deeper than this. It is very well expressed by two authors as follows:

“From The Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility” Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger

“We know from extensive psychological research that presenting frightening disaster scenarios provokes fatalism, paralysis and … individualistic thoughts of adaptation, not empowerment, hope, creativity and collective action.”

and by myself, David Anderson

“Q A new book (see //www.AnInquiry.com) about a fast approaching life and death struggle, with the future of the human spirit — and planet earth — hanging in the balance.”

Dear Andy,

Politics appears to have overwhelmed what one would expect to be a straightforward scientific discussion, one in which research is the object of attention, free from political ideologies.

In earlier posts, my aim has been to simply and directly present scientific research for open discussion. This evidence has nothing to do with economics or politics. It is what it is. Whatsoever is is, is it not?

Thanks to the Nobel Laureate IPCC scientists, remarkable and ample scientific evidence exists that indicates climate change is, at least in large part, human-induced. If potentially pernicious effects such as global warming are human-driven, then it is reasonable and sensible to ask what is fueling the recent skyrocketing increase of absolute global human population numbers that, in turn, are destabilizing Earth’s global ecosystems and dissipating Earth’s limited resources in our time.

In 1830, less than 1 billion people inhabited our planetary home. In the short time since then, human numbers have grown to 6.63+ billion people today.

Colleagues, friends and family, does common sense not suggest that we need adequate knowledge of the dynamics of the growth and decline of absolute human population numbers on Earth? The evidence from David Pimentel, Ph.D., and Russell Hopfenberg, Ph.D., indicate something simple: more food in the world equals more people on the planet; less food distributed worldwide equals less people in our planetary home; and in any and cases, no food equals no people.

As a way of promoting forward movement toward your expressed goal of meaningful discussion on root causes of climate change, let us begin by examining the outstanding work of Pimentel and Hopfenberg on human population dynamics. According to their research, the dynamics of human population numbers are essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species. This scientific evidence appears to contradict widely shared and consensually validated, perhaps preternatural thought that, when it comes to human population dynamics, the human species is not part of the natural order of living things and somehow, inexplicably, apparently exempt from the known “laws” of biophysical reality. What scientific evidence, reasoning or common sense exists to indicate that the human species is not a part of the natural world and not subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics, as an example?

Thanks for consideration and comments.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
//sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Given all this, what is an appropriate symbol / synecdoche around which people can rally? If the time horizons on sea level rise and glacial melt are potentially very long, and polar bears probably aren’t in immediate danger from climate change, what is the very simple rallying point that is both scientifically defensible and that can be used to get people’s attention and pull their heartstrings?

One technology could eliminate 40% of the US electricity demand. It is known by the US government(NREL/DOE) but they do not want to see this. Imagine unplugging you refrigerator, air conditioner, hot water heater and furnace? Never pay a utility bill for these demands again, sound nice? Ask your senators why they blacklisted new proven technologies for the sake of oil. Want to hear the truth, ask the New York Times why they haven’t returned correspondences to cover this technology? Just ask and we will show you something really cool! Literally.

Though I don’t have a link specifically, this month’s Sierra magazine discusses “desertification” as another climate change consequence for catastrophe. You suggest its implications without actual saying “desertification” in the final bolded bullet point. We are talking about reducing our dependence on oil, what about our increased dependence on water? Oil isn’t needed for physiological survival. Water is. What will be the impact of desertification on sea life, the displaced refugee’s as seas rise, failing crops from drought. Look what happened in our own country this year with Atlanta, Georgia?. Discussing “water” as a disappearing resource is another topic I’d like to hear about.
Finally, “biogenetically engineered” food. Yuk! It’s here. I don’t want it on my table. Bill and Linda Gates are subsidizing it. Then there are the chemicals or soil fumigants, used to grow certain foods. “Methyl iodide”, used to grow strawberries and tomatoes. It is a carcinogen that leaks into ground water (what’s left of the ground water anyway). Farmworkers can’t even enter a field where it’s been used for five days. Gee? That sounds really healthy for the planet and all of us. I remember Simazine, a soil sterilant, used for wine growing. We will do anything for a buck, including sell out our health and well being.
Thanks.
Elizabeth Tjader

Your initial list is certainly carefully constructed. It’s a good faith effort to find some bedrock in this discussion. However, it’s depressing to see that the doubters (some doubting in good faith, others in bad) have influenced you (us) enough so that you (we) are ending up retreating to root concepts that 90% of the scientific world has already bypassed and added enormously to. If we’re always going to be trying to convince the 10% or fewer, then we’ll be wasting time instead of debating the cutting edge of the discussion about what’s going on and what we might consider doing about it. I’ve always thought that a decision to take action is based on probability combined with severity of consequences. For example, it’s very unlikely that an asteroid will strike the Earth at any given moment, but the consequences are so dire that we should be prepared to prevent such a catastrophe. I can hear someone saying, “Well, would it really be so bad if an asteroid struck? It could reduce crowding on the planet and give new species a chance to evolve…” Furthermore, I’ll predict that even with your good faith effort to go back to lowest common denominators in this debate, the 10% still won’t be satisfied and will still insist that even these axiomatic truths are subject to questioning.

The role of geothermal heating is notably absent from your list. We live on a ball of molten rock and iron about 8,000 miles in diameter that is constantly heated by internal nuclear reactions. On average, the earth is warmer than the moon, about 15 degrees C, due to geothermal warming. Geothermal heat has only one place to go, out to the surface of the earth. There is no reason to think that the geothermal heat flux is constant. In fact, we know that major heat releases such as volcanic eruptions are, by definition, not steady. WE also know, due to the recent acceleration of the earth’s magnetic pole drift, that there is some kind of storm going on in the earth’s core, causing a realignment of that huge mass of molten metal. This accelerating magnetic pole alignment shift correlates well with the observed temperature shifts at the earth’s surface. Since we know that the earth’s surface is significantly warmed by geothermal heat, that geothermal heat is variable, that truly titanic forces are at work in the earth’s core changing its structure and alignment, and that geothermal heat flux has a much greater influence on surface temperatures than variations in carbon dioxide can possibly have, it makes sense to include its effects in a compendium of global warming discussion parameters. It has always surprised me that this huge, demonstrated contributor to global warming, in fact one that is essential to maintenance of everyday climate phenomena, is neglected in discussions of climate change. I suspect the reason is that climate change studies were promoted by the remote sensing crowd. Since major variable geothermal heat sources are buried under the ocean, they were not amenable to remote sensing, so were not included in the original formulations of the remote sensing problem. This fundamental gap in understanding the earth’s thermal balance needs to be closed, and certainly needs to be included in a list of relevant discussion topics.

Any survey of opinion as distinct from observation, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels are verifiable, and reference to the reviewed scientific literature is an exercise in establishing conventional wisdom at best. Look to the cogent such as Real Climate.

yours
Frank Johnston

You make the following observation.

“Too many people today are vulnerable to the world’s existing climate extremes, and widespread prosperity and security are unlikely to be attained without cutting vulnerability even as long-term climate policies are hashed out. Reducing vulnerability to climate hazards will benefit the world with or without human-driven warming.”

Well, this blog is about climate. But prosperity and security have a very tenuous link to climate. The link to legal, social, and political systems is much stronger. As an example, the devastation in New Orleans was directly caused by levies breaking that given honest responsible local government might have been adequately examined and maintained.