The Forgotten History Of Climate-Change Science

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. Last week the National Climate Assessment report was released detailing the toll climate change is already taking on the United States in terms of droughts, floods, heat waves and changes in agriculture. This report follows on the heals of two others (IPCC & AAAS) released over the last few months, all of which make clear that the door for taking action on greenhouses gases — actions that might mitigate far more dramatic consequences — is rapidly closing.

And still, the denial goes on.

Whatever their motivation, the voices arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change often treat the research and analysis supporting that consensus as an aberration. In the denialist "through-the-looking-glass" distortion of scientific history, climate studies can appear as some kind of crooked new invention of an imagined California cabal of Birkenstock-wearing environmentalists. By treating climate science as a field too new, unstable and politicized to trust, denialists in this country have sown enough doubt to blunt a real debate over real responses.

So, let's set the record straight. When was human-driven climate change discovered and when did the world of politics/policy first take notice?

We could begin in the 1820s when Joseph Fourier first suggested that gases in the atmosphere trap some of the sun's heat like glass in a greenhouse (hence the "greenhouse effect"). We could also begin in the 1860s with John Tyndall measuring the capacity of water vapor and CO2 to trap infrared light (the ground under your feet emits long wavelength infrared radiation after it is warmed by the incoming sunlight which arrives mostly at shorter wavelengths). It was Tyndall who came up with the potent metaphor of greenhouse gases as a "blanket" covering the Earth.

So through Fourier and Tyndall we could trace the basic elements of the greenhouse effect back almost 200 years. Hardly the stuff of a modern conspiracy. But neither of these researchers suggested that human beings were doing anything to alter the chemistry of the atmosphere. Surely that is a recent invention of the environmentalist age.

The first calculation of the greenhouse effect to include human-driven release of greenhouse gases came about 100 years ago. Using estimates of coal burning, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius built on other calculations he'd made and estimated that doubling the CO2 content of the planet's atmosphere would raise it's temperature by 2.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius.

That is where it all begins.

But surely Arrhenius' calculation was too simple. Think of all the details he missed. What about the influence of the vast oceans that are constantly soaking up CO2? That must make a huge difference. It might, but that question was answered more than 60 years ago.

It was in 1957 that Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Hans Suess of the U.S. Geological Survey discovered the chemical pathways of ocean CO2 uptake. Their findings showed the oceans to be limited in their ability to absorb the CO2 we released through burning fossil fuels. While their calculations have been refined over time, their basic conclusions have stood the test of time.

From Arrhrenius to Revelle to right now. That's 100 years of climate science reaching the same conclusion. The history of science simply doesn't provide much meat for the pseudo-skeptics to chew on.

What about the politics and policy? Surely the awareness of climate science's predictions is a recent phenomenon?

Hardly.

As Dale Jamieson noted in his recent book Reason In A Dark Time, by the end of the 1950s the consequences of CO2 release were clear enough for policy makers to take note. In 1965 President Johnson told the nation "[t]his generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through ... a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." In 1969 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was warning of a dangerous sea-level rise of 10 feet or more. "Goodbye New York" he said. "Goodbye Washington."

Throughout the 1970s the drumbeat only got louder. And while denialists are fond of citing "global cooling" as evidence against global warming, that idea had its day in the media but never had a hold in the scientific literature. From the late 1950s to today, the consensus on global warming/climate change in the scientific community has tracked a fairly steady path of increasing understanding and certainty.

So, it has been a full century since the engine driving climate change was first discovered. It's been more than a half-century since the risks entered the realm of public policy.

What does that mean?

It means climate science and climate change are older than the atom bomb, older than the discovery of penicillin and the older than recognition of DNA. It's older than trans-Atlantic jet flights, digital computers and moon rockets. Climate science and its conclusions are now venerable, established science. To claim anything else is to rewrite history.

But, as always, we must try and separate the science we know from the policy we must create. Perhaps the solution to climate change will be something environmentalists hate. If that's our best bet, so be it. But whatever bet we make on our future in terms of climate action, it must truly be our best and our most informed. Pretending climate science hasn't been saying much the same thing for a long, long time now is nothing more than wishful thinking.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/05/13/312128173/the-forgotten-history-of-climate-change-science?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140513

[eieio 1,594]

It means climate science and climate change are older than the atom bomb, older than the discovery of penicillin and the older than recognition of DNA. It's older than trans-Atlantic jet flights, digital computers and moon rockets. Climate science and its conclusions are now venerable, established science. To claim anything else is to rewrite history.

They forgot....Older than mankind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An asteroid impact or catastrophic volcano eruption can change climate almost overnight. Is it really that difficult to believe that human activity could also change climate, ask albeit over a longer time period?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. Last week the National Climate Assessment report was released detailing the toll climate change is already taking on the United States in terms of droughts, floods, heat waves and changes in agriculture. This report follows on the heals of two others (IPCC & AAAS) released over the last few months, all of which make clear that the door for taking action on greenhouses gases — actions that might mitigate far more dramatic consequences — is rapidly closing.

I do not deny that the increase of CO2 is largely man-made and that it does have an effect on climate and that there will be consequences for decades to come and that if we continue on the current path it could even bring down our current civilization.

but.. making unsubstantiated scare tactic claims like the one above gives fuel to those who question the claim. We can't whine about people ignoring science and then say droughts, floods, and heat waves in the recent past are caused by climate change - we can't prove that, we don't know that. Stick to the provable undeniable facts which are bad enough so that we don't have to back peddle from making connections to local weather that can't be proven.

It drives me crazy when we have a cold spell that people see it as proof that "global warming" is not real.. Its just as bad to have a warm spell and for someone to say "yip! Proof of climate change!"

[B_J 2,752]

So, here's my real question:

Hasn't it happened throughout history that events happen causing mass extinction? You had the asteroid causing the extinction of dinosaurs and then the few species that were still alive gradually evolved into what we have now.

If climate change were to actually cause the extinction of mankind and multiple other species, wouldn't life continue to evolve to survive in the new conditions?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

So, here's my real question:

Hasn't it happened throughout history that events happen causing mass extinction? You had the asteroid causing the extinction of dinosaurs and then the few species that were still alive gradually evolved into what we have now.

If climate change were to actually cause the extinction of mankind and multiple other species, wouldn't life continue to evolve to survive in the new conditions?

Maybe, but humans would be dead. All our struggles, for naught. No descendants living on.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

So, here's my real question:

Hasn't it happened throughout history that events happen causing mass extinction? You had the asteroid causing the extinction of dinosaurs and then the few species that were still alive gradually evolved into what we have now.

If climate change were to actually cause the extinction of mankind and multiple other species, wouldn't life continue to evolve to survive in the new conditions?

The original (and worst) grand extinction event very nearly snuffed out life on the planet and took almost 10 million years for life to return to the same level...

In comparison this is small.. The earth is not going to end.. life either.. not even human life.. Probably not even civilization.. But do we really want to be push the planet into a cycle that *could* end civilization, cause widespread hardship, and stifle human progress until the planet naturally balances again? Sure maybe its only a few hundred or a few thousand years.. who knows? There is a whole slew of really bad possibilities...

What we do know for sure: The climate has had drastic changes in the past that has wiped out huge swaths of life.. The climate right now is very good for us.. We are slowly pushing the planet into a different climate reality..

Edited May 14, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[B_J 2,752]

Maybe, but humans would be dead. All our struggles, for naught. No descendants living on.

Okay, so when we talk about "saving the planet" we're really just saying "save the planet so we don't all die".

Makes sense. Of course, Save the Planet sounds a lot more nobler.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Okay, so when we talk about "saving the planet" we're really just saying "save the planet so we don't all die".

Makes sense. Of course, Save the Planet sounds a lot more nobler.

Maybe, though I think it's really "save the planet as it is."

If earth turns to a giant sulfuric gas blob, and all life and all trees and all cute kittens are dead, would it still be earth?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Harpa Timsah

[mota bhai 2,675]

Maybe, but humans would be dead. All our struggles, for naught. No descendants living on.

That is going to eventually happen whether you like it or not.

[B_J 2,752]

Maybe, though I think it's really "save the planet as it is."

If earth turns to a giant sulfuric gas blob, and all life and all trees and all cute kittens are dead, would it still be earth?

But life will continue. Does it have to be life that I'm there to witness? Does it have to be a life full of cuteness? And, given enough time, life would evolve again in some form.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

That is going to eventually happen whether you like it or not.

Agreed, but do you want to speed it up? Doesn't the journey matter?

[mota bhai 2,675]

But life will continue. Does it have to be life that I'm there to witness? Does it have to be a life full of cuteness? And, given enough time, life would evolve again in some form.

And besides, there is more to existence than the physical form. How much passion are we supposed to expend towards protecting the mere tip of the iceberg?

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

So, here's my real question:

Hasn't it happened throughout history that events happen causing mass extinction? You had the asteroid causing the extinction of dinosaurs and then the few species that were still alive gradually evolved into what we have now.

If climate change were to actually cause the extinction of mankind and multiple other species, wouldn't life continue to evolve to survive in the new conditions?

But I don't wanna extinct...

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

But life will continue. Does it have to be life that I'm there to witness? Does it have to be a life full of cuteness? And, given enough time, life would evolve again in some form.

Life is pretty fragile. I am not sure that it would continue no matter what.