EarthBeat Radio

I enjoyed the show.

I'm writing this comment to discuss the stark difference I saw in how Joe Romm and host Mike Tidwell see the issue Mike chose to lead the introduction to the show with, i.e. Arctic ice melt, and how Andy Revkin says he sees it.

I studied Andy's writing on Arctic ice on Dot Earth and in articles in the NY Times earlier this year, I see his attitude is similar now, and I still wonder why.

I'll illustrate my point by quoting Joe's position, then Andy as he disagrees with Joe, then Andy as he refuses to answer Mike as Mike tries to pin him down, then finish with a few quotes from James Hansen's open letter to President elect Obama to illustrate what one of the best climatologists in the world is formally saying about what scientists believe to the President-elect of the US by way of a hand delivered letter conveyed by President-elect Obama's chosen Science Adviser, John Holdren.

Your host, Mike Tidwell put what's happening to the Arctic ice right at the top of the list of important things that happened in 2008, i.e. at 1:08 into the show: "...and what a year it was. Scientists continue to be shocked at the lack of ice in the Arctic..."

And here's an exchange between Romm, Revkin and Tidwell starting at 26:10 into the show:

Joe Romm: "one of the things we learned in 2008 is the scientific literature has really said the IPCC really blew it on sea level rise. And there have been three or four major studies to come out in the last 18 months since the IPCC report which said that we are looking at a meter or more of sea level rise by the end of the century."

Andy Revkin: "well Joe, I just read the literature differently than you I think. The sea level issue has gotten more complicated.... ...and believe me I'm not an advocate for not doing anything, it's just look at what I've been writing, I'm just saying that if the case is made on the sense that we have a certainty that we're gonna have..." [my note: Mike has been trying throughout this answer of Andy's to cut him off to ask a more pointed question]

Mike Tidwell: "And look, we have one minute left, and I'm wondering Andy Revkin would you agree though that the impacts have accelerated more than most scientists thought ten years ago we're seeing greater faster impacts now despite the uncertainties that in fact this is an accelerated process beyond what most scientists thought was the case ten years ago..."

Revkin: "well, to me again the acceleration that's most problematic is in emissions and the buildup of CO2 and the other greenhouse gases..." [speaks with authority and in some depth on a different point, i.e. avoids answering the question]

Now James Hansen has written an open letter to President-elect Obama

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

Hansen states why: "urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth."

And a bit further on, same letter: "There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences"

I would say the most important thing that happened in 2008 was this: Hansen is saying that there is too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere already, i.e. that the "dangerous" climate change everyone was talking about that the planet would be committed to if GHG levels ever rose beyond 450 ppm are already here, as the "safe" level was 325 - 350 ppm. I say this is a 2008 event, even though Hansen started making this position public in December 2007, because he is now saying he has the backing of the National Academy of Sciences as he makes this statement, and Gore made a point of telling the conference at Poznan that international negotiations should now aim at this new target, 325 - 350 ppm.

Earthbeat might like to ask Hansen if part of "the stream of new data" with "startling implications" is the sudden melting of summer sea ice in the Arctic, but I believe it is preposterous to say otherwise.

Revkin would have us believe that the scientists can't even make up their minds if global warming is causing the Arctic summer sea ice melt, or that climate has even changed up there. He used the word "certainty" on your show, as if nothing could be said with certainty, and in this debate, Revkin knows there is not the slightest possibility of certainty ever arriving until after the fact, and as he is showing us, even as the Arctic ice melts in front of our eyes Revkin will still stand there and state it is not certainly due to global warming. I wonder why. Revkin's job, it seems, is to interpret what scientists know for the general public. I wonder if that's what he's doing: there is such a stark difference between what the scientists say and what he says. Perhaps he's too close to people studying a particular specialist's issue, i.e. ocean currents in the Arctic, etc.

Hansen says the National Academy of Sciences is now ready to state along with him that a "startling" change in understanding of how dangerous climate change is has "become clear to the relevant experts" which means that it is now necessary to change even the ultimate target level at stabilization that the entire world has been negotiating for decades. Revkin perhaps would challenge if Hansen even knows who the "relevant experts" are?

I note here that the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, has said that James Hansen is the climatologist he would single out from a very select group of the top flight scientists working in this field, as the best. And I repeat: the President-elect of the US, i.e. Barack Obama's chosen Science Advisor, John Holdren, will be personally conveying the letter these quotes are taken from written by James Hansen to the President-elect once he is inaugurated. If what Hansen says to the President can’t be taken to be what the science is, and we’re supposed to listen to Revkin saying nothing is known for certain I say, as the line goes from Han Solo in Star Wars: “I have a bad feeling about this”.