Apparently Climate Change Is "Controversial" o_0

It's an interesting talk, and I found the stock market/surface temperature analogy at about 8:02 particularly compelling, but conceding right from the start that climate change is somehow magically still a "controversial" topic, when in fact the science behind man-made emissions causing the observed warming is as settled as any established scientific notion we rely upon in our daily lives, is all part of the "be nice" approach that has led us to a critical point where we still have zero meaningful policy and no time left to waste. Those who still believe there's a controversy here with two sides engaging in a "balanced" debate are well past the tactful kid-glove treatment now. They need a forceful, unflinching, high-speed, crash course or cram session, so they can catch up with the rest of us who have embraced reality. Sorry, but the gentle coaxing period has expired.

A Longwinded Nitpick for Dr. Steven Novella

I love, love, LOVE me some Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast. Along with a regimen of other science/skeptic/atheist podcasts, it makes it onto my MP3 player every week, and I look forward to it reducing the mind-numbing monotony of errands/chores/shopping/walking to the gym/etc. Yup, you got it, I'm a dork, and, obviously, a big fan of SGU (maybe that's redundant).

So, while doing some yard work a few days ago with ye ole earphones stuck in my head, I cringed jeeeeyust a little bit while listening to this part of last week's show:



Now, I, like Novella, wish to tread very carefully here. He is clearly not a climate change denier, and I am not an anti-GMO crackpot. That being said, GMO food and the science behind its safety have only been around for a few decades. Science which establishes the inarguable role of human emissions in our changing climate, on the other hand, has been around for well over a century. I know Novella was only expressing his opinion, not some precise quantitative measurement that he made in the lab, or something, and I know he probably likes to research/read about GMOs more than global warming, unlike me, but the idea that 30 years or so of findings behind something that hit the grocery shelves only 20 years ago can compare, and even outshine, the veracity of the century-old physics and science underpinning man-made global warming does not sit well with me.

Again, this is not to say that GMOs are in fact dangerous to us; it is only to establish the equally-solid footing, in my opinion, that both areas of study share. And if one could be said to possess a stronger and sturdier set of scientific "legs" under it, it would have to be anthropogenic global warming, because it has stood the test of time for much longer. If I were forced to list the three scientific fields mentioned in the episode excerpt above from greatest to least reliability of evidence, it would be evolution first, man-made climate change second, and GMO safety last, though, once again, I wish to stress they are all pretty much inarguable at this point.

Here's where I extract some quotes from the excerpt and probably really come across as a nitpicking churl...

"I actually think our evidence for the safety of GMO is more robust than our, you know, models about climate change...There are degrees of robustness; I think, like, the notion that evolution happened is far and away the most robust scientific conclusion that's out there."

Honestly, I think Novella just misspoke in the first part of this quote here. I don't think, or at least I hope it's not the case, that he is falling for the classic denier false dichotomy which ignorantly compares the predictive capacity of climate models to the core findings in other fields. This is comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare robustness between fields, you have to compare the science to the science, not the models to the science, so a fairer comparison would be the contrasting of research which has all but eliminated natural causes being behind the observed modern warming against the evidence for GMO safety. Would Dr. Novella find it fair if I compared the accuracy of models in his own field that attempt to simulate neural networks and the brain to the body of work in another research discipline, and then say the robustness of neuroscience is inferior to those other discoveries because the simulations are far from exact? Another way of stating this, while addressing the second part of the quote, would be to challenge someone to make computer models that predict what animals will look like hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years from now. G'head. What? Your evolutionary biology is not strong enough to manufacture precise model outcomes? Frogs won't stand upright in 124,997 CE like your models indicate?

"Even the IPCC is saying 95%. Yeah, that's pretty good, but 95% is 95%, whereas evolution is like 99.9999... whatever percent that that's the explanation for the diversity of life."

This one's easy. Technically, the IPCC said 95% or greater. Leaving that last part out fails to accept that its conclusion allows for, but does not guarantee, "99.9999... whatever percent." Also, I think if he researches climate change science as fastidiously as he does GMOs, he will soon come to the realization that IPCC declarations of any kind regarding climate change are conservative to a fault.

From the Real Climate link (bold text to distinguish it from Novella's quotes):

"That the IPCC often needs to correct itself 'upward' is an illustration of the fact that it tends to produce very cautious and conservative statements, due to its consensus structure – the IPCC statements form a kind of lowest common denominator on which many researchers can agree."

When you get away from the IPCC and start looking around the climatology field itself, you find out quite quickly that it is more like a "99.9999... whatever percent" consensus anymore.

However, as Novella rightly points out by specifically referencing this GMO crop study and bringing up the larger body of scientific work which all but absolves them of causing any serious or significant side effects in humans and livestock, we need not fear their consumption. My main issue with GMOs is that their proponents are as determined to exaggerate their benefits for "saving humanity" and the potency of the "greenies-gone-wild" war against them, as opponents like Jeffrey Smith are to play up imaginary health impacts. Sure, that's not the fault of the GMO industry, but I think it provides some necessary perspective.

Reinforcing the idea that GMOs receive way too much credit, I would even go so far as to say that they owe the lion's share of their success to the impressive efficacy of the newest generation of neonicotinoid insecticides that are commonly used in conjunction with them. At the risk of getting my atheist membership card revoked, these newer insecticides were a, well, godsend. We desperately needed something effective at killing pests without poisoning vertebrates, which was one of the unfortunate side effects of organochlorides (DDT), organophosphates, and carbamates. Presto, right about the time GMOs were being perfected/patented, along came neonicotinoids which had little or no toxicity in higher vertebrates, but sure as heck did a number on pesky, parasitic invertebrates.

Oops. Turns out, maybe they do too good a job, and maybe it's fair to make GMO crops share some of the blame, because, again, they owe a great deal of thanks for their success to neonicotinoids, if you ask me, but that discussion, dear blog readers, does not change what was stated above (in a vacuum, and by themselves, it can rightfully be argued GMOs are safe...that is, if neonicotinoids and their dangers are ultimately eliminated, you can bet your booty GMOs will still remain in use), and is maybe for another time...

And thanks, SGU, for all the awesome podcasts! Continue to make like a buh-zillion more, please! I would like to remind all five of my readers that SGU is still being sued for no good reason. If you care at all about free speech and the ability to criticize charlatans without legal repercussions, you can help out here.

/nitpick

Steven Goddard Fails at Geography and History

A joint NOAA/PMEL/JISAO mission to study Arctic Ocean heat flux will be based out of Fairbanks, Alaska, so Steven Goddard decided it made sense to mock the study with one chilly forecast he found for a Canadian town 1,500 miles away.



Also, he has no idea the Industrial Revolution began back in the mid 1700's, so he doesn't understand that weather and climate events during the late 1800's and mid 1900's may very well have contained an anthropogenic component. And exactly what pillar of climate science comes crashing down when a drought is not worse than all those that preceded it?

"The nation’s top scientists are apparently a bunch of real geniuses."

Taking the sarcasm out of it, a "real genius" is something, I assure you, Steven, you need never worry about being mistaken for as long as you keep posting ridiculous crap on your worthless blog.

Regenerative Agriculture Revisited

Image source.

About a month and a half ago, I blogged about a no-till, cover-crop, monoculture-phobic farming technique called regenerative or restorative agriculture, which has proponents who make some — to say the least — rather remarkable claims regarding its environmental benefits. I expressed my skepticism in the post, and I promised a follow-up where I would check some of the numbers. Let's take a look at one of the more astounding assertions made by David C. Johnson of New Mexico State University.

Johnson claims that by combining no-till farming with a composting process he developed, which changes the soil microbe mix from one that is mostly bacterial to one that is mostly fungal, it may only take 11% of the world's cropland to offset total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (~34 Gt/yr).

If you're not aware, that, ladies and gentlemen, is quite a staggering declaration, and here's why...




The world has somewhere near 1,396,200,000 hectares, or 13,962,000 square kilometers, or 3.5 billion acres of arable land.

11% of 3,500,000,000 acres is 385,000,000 acres. In order for that amount of land to offset 34 Gt of CO2 annually, each acre would have to sequester about 88 metric tons each year.

That's around the mass of a herd of 10-15 African elephants getting stuffed into an approximate 200' by 200' area of ground every year.

While admitting uncertainties, Eve et al. 2002, the USDA, and the National Farmers Union all put the best sequestration rates for strict no-till farming practices at about 0.6 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year more than popular conventional tillage practices. At that improved rate, if we converted all 3.5 billion acres of viable cropland (not just 11%) to no-till agriculture, we would take about an additional 2,100,000,000 metric tons or 2.1 Gt of CO2 out of the atmosphere annually, which is nice, but quite a departure from Johnson's numbers.

Therefore this composting technique, whatever it is, would have to improve no-till's sequestration potential by 146 times (88/0.6=~146).

146 times.

That's some fairly impressive decaying biological material, lemme tell ya. Now, I must admit I have not read Kristin Ohlson's book, nor have I delved fully into Johnson's research at NMSU/WERC, and Sandia Labs, so I cannot even pretend to understand the entire process he is proposing, but 0.6 metric tons of sequestered CO2 versus 88 metric tons? I feel pretty comfortable at this point reinforcing my initial skepticism, while welcoming any corrections at the same time. In other words, lemme have it, regenerative agriculture fans, because right now I am anything but convinced. ;)

Hours of Climate Science Discussion

"The human influence on the climate system is clear. This is based on the fact that, if you take a climate model, you can't simulate the warming of the last 30 years unless you include greenhouse gases that have been introduced by humans."

- Professor Dennis L. Hartmann, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

"And as each new study is released, I am only more convinced of the urgency of this situation. Not just its depth, but the urgency of this challenge."

- Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington

This should keep you busy for a while. :)

Below are all the video playlists posted thus far from the recent 2014 Fifth Annual Pacific Northwest Climate Science Conference. I haven't watched them all yet, but everything I've seen thus far has been incredibly interesting and informative. There's some basic, foundational science as well as some cutting edge stuff here, presented by researchers who have taken the time to come down from their oft unfairly ridiculed "Ivory Towers" to engage in public outreach. We should reciprocate and listen to what they have to say. If you only have time to watch a little, pick a topic that interests you, and, like me, you may be surprised by how long you end up staying tuned. Also other educational/climate conference organizers may be encouraged to do more of this kinda thing, if the YouTube view counts start increasing. Enjoy.

Opening Plenary and Keynote Address


PNW Climate


Hydrology & Water Resources


Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems


Built Environment


Morning Plenary Special Session (Sept 10)


Working Across Boundaries


Shorelines, Oceans, and Marine Ecosystems


Human Health


Closing Plenary

There Is Reason to Be Optimistic

Here is the short film shown to world leaders at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York, called What's Possible, and its sequel, A World of Solutions; both are really well-made. You can watch them here, or visit the source.

"The process of changing the Earth back into a place that will support us is well under way. Progress is being made, and there is reason to be optimistic."

If CEO of Wayne Enterprises, President Beck, and God all say it's so, who am I to argue? ;)

Leonardo DiCaprio's UN Address

"None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact. The scientific community knows it. Industry knows it. Governments know it. Even the United States military knows it. The Chief of the US Navy's Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that climate change is our single greatest security threat."

Being an on-air meteorologist is no guarantee of climate change acumen, certainly, but what does it say about your meteorological credentials when a Hollywood actor has a greater command of the science and therefore understands the urgency of the situation better than you?

Then again, Watts can't even distinguish between what an author has a fictional character in a work of parody say...

"Stepping back from the forest non issue, there is another aspect of the NY climate conference spin which I find disturbing – the continuous emphasis on the need for 'widespread collaboration' and 'unprecedented cooperation.' Every time I see a reference to how everyone has to allegedly strive to sacrifice their own interests, and work together for a common eco-goal, to save the world, I remember something the famous author Terry Pratchett once said;

"'Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.'"

...and the forest conservationism and eco-collaboration and cooperation goals he campaigns for in real life.

I ask this in all honesty and sincerity. Is there one climate change denier out there with any grey matter left between the ears? We can obviously scratch Anthony Watts off the list.