That’s the title of my talk at the University of Houston-Clear Lake tonight at 6 pm (info here).
In the long-term, the answer is kind of obvious:
- Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher “” “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.”
- Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse at landfall, Part 2
But I welcome thoughts on what message would be worthwhile to deliver right now.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Great opportunity, Joe! I’d use a good part of your time to tell the audience that a world sustainable energy supply is possible by 2050; that means a sustained global effort over the coming 40 years. Whole lot of work for university graduates!
Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm.
400 ppm in 1942.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Wow, I live in Houston and blog frequently about climate change. Frankly I am surprised that the climate change people haven’t paid more attention to what’s going on in Texas. (btw, I don’t think I’ll be able to make the lecture, although I’ll try to).
Texas uses more coal, natural gas and oil than any other state
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html
At the same time, 2/3 of the state has a private market for buying electricity; the cost of renewable energy is fiercely competitive with nonrenewables. The cost difference is usually no more than 5% (according to powertochoose http://www.powertochoose.org/_content/_compare/compare.aspx ) and in Dallas, renewable energy has actually been cheaper. But TXU and Reliant Energy are still the most popular companies here even though they deal with dirty fuels. Everyone sees commercials for these companies all the time and they are beloved brand names.
The Texas State Comptroller did an excellent report about state energy usage and production http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/ and of course you know about Texas’s wind initiative and the SA Nuclear plant issues.
Houston (like other places) is heavily dependent on fossil fuel industries. That’s where all the jobs are (even though Houston diversified a bit after the 1980s oil bust). The biggest business conference here is the OTC (offshore Technology Conference), and nonprofits and charities depend heavily on donations from local oil companies.
I once judged a local competition for trade publications (I’m a technical writer); every single entry to the competition was related to oil and gas in some way.
News reporting in the Houston Chronicle is not bad, but the articles go into excruciating detail about how it might affect oil and gas with only incidental coverage about the social/environmental benefits.
Many people claim Houston is unlivable in the summer because of the hot temperature. To imagine that Houston could have more days over 100 degrees is absolutely unthinkable and a totally scary thing…even for denialists. (I reposted the graphic from Global Climate Change impacts here http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2009/07/friday-links/
Houston (and Texas) is SUV city. You will see a higher percentage of SUVs here than anywhere (I’m guessing).
One of the big energy/sustainability issues facing Houston is the emphasis of highway funds and tollways over mass transit. Houston was very late starting on mass transit, and it’s so puny to be almost laughable.
Except for certain liberal pockets, the idea of global warming seems like a mostly laughable notion to most Houstonians. But the bigger issue is that so few Houstonians are moving to smaller cars or taking advantage of the reasonable prices for renewable energy in the privatized energy market.
Science describes our position with the environment as a war-like emergency yet the academy, most of the scientific community, most environmental groups, the world’s major industries, and most of the global political establishment is failing to address this with the level of required extreme urgency and further amplifying an existing very dangerous situation.
We exist in an immediacy of incredible paradox as it is most likely that humanity’s most aggressive weapons dealing with the climate change crisis are and will be of the most extraordinary benevolence toward nature and people with strong indications of a near-utopian outcome where, even now, half the people of the developed world born in the year 2000 have life expectancies of 100 years in a world of previously undreamt of resources, benefits, affluence and comforts.
Point to the recent letter by 32 coastal scientists to Governor Jindal of neighboring Louisiana concerning the seriousness of accelerated sea-level rise (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/gov_bobby_jindal_pressed_to_ta.html). The Galveston Bay area and parts of Houston itself are similarly highly vulnerable.
Also, mention the paper appearing in yesterday’s Science that projects fewer hurricanes but twice as many Category 4 and 5s under a mid-range warming scenario (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/327/5964/454). The figure reproduced in Andy Revkin’s dot.earth depicts a couple of simulated big ones going right through Houston (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/warming-seen-to-cut-atlantic-hurricane-tally-but-boost-threat/#more-13523). Houstonians really pay attention to hurricanes.
Hmm… the vulnerability of the city popularly regarded as the oil capital of the US. Irony, anyone?
Joe,
I would tell people about the problems in Australia. Droughts and wildfires.
Spain, India, and China have drought problems.
Somebody should maintain a list of all of the problems around the world.
I don’t think the average person is affected by CO2 pm numbers and fractions of a degree in temp. They don’t understand science and issues like energy balances.
Depending on whether you want to stick only to the science or whether you also want to add a few thoughts regarding human responsibility and related matters (which I recommend) …
There is the science of the matter, of course.
Then there is the human commonsense and ethical responsibility to take action in order to avoid generating harms, even in the face of various degrees of uncertainty.
On the latter point, imagine that you are the parent of a young child. The two of you are walking along a trail in a park somewhere, and you see a small pond or lake. It’s new to you. (You’ve never been there before.) The pond or lake looks fresh but is a bit murky, so you can’t tell how deep it is: It could be ten feet deep, or it could be ten inches deep. Your young child climbs atop a short rock and wants to dive into the pond, headfirst. You realize that doing so could be totally safe, or it could be disastrously unhealthy, or somewhere in-between. What do you do?
Well, of course, as a sensible (and ethical) parent, you tell your child NOT to dive into the water, headfirst, until you have first confirmed that it would be entirely SAFE to do so. You don’t let the child proceed until you are confident in the SAFETY of the situation. You DON’T say “go ahead” just because there is a 50% chance that the water IS deep enough, along with the 50% chance that it isn’t.
And (moving to yet another point), there is the matter of intellectual honesty and the need to avoid hypocrisy. For example (and relating the matter to Texas), ExxonMobil prides itself on telling the public that it is a VERY SCIENTIFIC organization, full of thousands of excellent scientists. But then, of course, they neglect the fact that scientific understanding, combined with basic human considerations, would have us promptly reduce our dependence on hydrocarbon-based fuel sources. In other words, they tell us that they are highly scientific, as an organization, and then they ignore or downplay science in areas where it’s MOST important. That just won’t do, of course. It’s not intellectually rigorous, nor is it ethical and humane. It’s not responsible. And, people in Houston should hear that.
OK, that’s it for now. Good luck,
Jeff
Northern California?
By the way, Joe, when will you be coming to speak (or visit) in Northern California? Please let us know ahead of time, so we can try to be there.
Cheers,
Jeff
In the heart of oil country, you’d better be prepared for some denialists to attempt to shout you down mid-talk. Manners don’t matter to many of them.
Dengue fever moving north, health impacts should be emphasized.
Joe, the most compelling fact relating sea level rise to Houston is: 42 percent of America’s petrochemical industry is located on the Houston ship channel.
It is one thing to consider Houston losing that industry to rising seas.
It is a more frightening concern to imagine the massive outflow of highly toxic chemicals that have saturated the soil beneath the plants and storage tanks being washed into the Gulf.
Not that Houston’s fate is the worst loss that US and world economy will suffer when the ship channel covers the corporate parking lot.
Rather, it will happen at about the same time that global coastal (at sea level)energy (oil delivery and refinement) infrastructures go under the waves at the same time.
Tell Houston it has a problem there may not be time to correct.
John McCormick
Sergi @ #2…
Please leave that on the dung heap where it belongs.
Joe, I think it’s much better to use the Pliocene results (PRISM) than the Miocene stuff since during the Pliocene we had +25 meter SLR and 2-3C warming even though CO2 peaked only briefly at 350 ppm (per Tripati et al), and because other than the SLR effects the geography was practically indistinguishable from current. Robinson (2009) has the latest version of the PRISM SST reconstruction (graphic on page 7 centered on the North Atlantic, which works for Houston), and of course Lunt et al (2010) makes the broader point that based on the Pliocene overall climate sensitivity is 30-50% higher than the short-term (Charney) sensitivity.
Re #10: Let’s not adulterate perfectly good dung, Tom. :)
Hey, I’ll see you there. UHCL is just down the road from me.
BTW Robert Nagle – here is a good source of global warming news specific to Texas. http://www.texasclimatenews.org/
Oh, and what to talk about:
Sea Level Rise
Sea Level Rise
Sea Level Rise
Sea Level Rise
And what it’s going to do to Texas’ beaches (1,500′ of inland migration for every foot of sea level rise at Galveston) which include the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier islands in the world as well as to Texas’ and Louisiana’s marshlands.
Also mention that scienists think they are finally getting a handle on hurricanes and global warming with the new study by Bender that shows Cat 3 and 4 storms will increase by 80% in the North Atlantic. That will probably bring some in the audience to tears as we’re still picking up the pieces from Ike.
Perhaps mention that our climate will resemble that of northern Australia, summer mid-day temps over 100F 65% humidity will be normal by 2080 according to GISS. Most of us are already getting the jitters as our summer starts in early May.
Chemical Industry – no big deal, most of the Houston Ship Channel industries sit between 30 and 50′ above msl.
I’ve read in a couple of articles that bush’s ranch in Texas is an environmentlist’s dream, with solar panels, completely off the grid, etc. I just hope with all my might that when the #5 hurricanes strike, creep face is sitting there in his home and is demolished along with all his ill-gotten material goods!
The one thing that convinces most people to take Global Warming seriously in my experience is to let them read the book preface on Methane catastrophes: “KILLER IN OUR MIDST– Methane Catastrophes in Earth’s Past and Near Future” by Dan Dorrite. Gets them everytime!!!
Joe, [3rd attempt, w/o links]
Houston? You are sailing defiantly into the Shoals of Perpetual Denial where still haunt the Gorgons of Ignorance & Xenophobia & Parochial Paranoia.
Spreading the unholy news among Houstonites that they will be battered & swallowed by the ominous Storms of Our Grandchildren sooner than later because of sins against the gods of Reason might yet reach some godfearing hearts & minds.
Athena speed! And don’t forget your bronze shield.
Joe: thanks again for traveling all the way to Houston. I know it’s hard to be away from home. I understand where you’re coming from much better now. I always figured you gave Revkin and crew too much grief, but now realize you have more confidence in your knowledge than is apparent in your blog entries and that you don’t suffer fools.
I’ll be attending a sea level rise conference in Corpus Christi the first week of March that includes talks from the British Antarctic Survey. If I’m successful in softening the limeys up over a few beers I’ll report the real poop on the west Ant. ice sheet.
Joe, can you let us know how it went?
If you speak there again there’s a speaker whose lectures include a quick global history of energy and when discussing the Middle East he says “Well what we’ve really had is a war-like misogynistic people who commit public executions who just had the geologic and geographic accident of having oil under their feet that’s given them money and power disproportionate to their current intellectual and cultural development (pause). . .but that’s enough about Texas, let’s go back to the Middle East.” I’ll bet you’re sorry you didn’t hear that quote in time to use it in your talk.
Also I guessed about what the percentages of scientists in the primary disciplines are who believe in human-caused global warming under the TV Meteorologists heading several posts below. I’d like to know what your estimates and those of others are.
Thanks, Richard Brenne
And Joe, since you’re so good with humor and movie references, was “Houston, We Have a Problem” too obvious?
[JR: Yes, well, that might have been a better talk title.]
The advantage of “obvious” is that you don’t have to explain it, the latter being far worse from a rhetorical persepective.
Gavin from RC was kind enough to point me to the specific debunkings of the paper that Sergi Melzar felt he just had to tell us about back up at #2.
The debunkings are here. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=E._G._Beck
Eli is great.
Now, because Tom & Steve joked about Sergi’s post belonging on the dung pile, I must point out that it’s funny that it was post #2 … ’cause a number two should always … ok, maybe I’ve stayed up too late. If Sergi is a paid shill, then we must ask “Who does #2 work for?”
Joe,
You were in Houston and you didn’t announce this on facebook?! I live in Houston and would have loved to hear your talk. I would also like to invite you to appear on our local community radio station for a 30 minute show on the latest science on severe global climate disruption aka: global warming and the current state of the American Clean Energy and Security Act and its prospects for passage. Please contact me on facebook.
[JR: I should have announced this sooner, sorry. Was crashing on my book and didn't think it through. We can do the radio by phone when the book comes out, okay?]
Houston… Ah Houston.
Will Denver welcome the refugees? – too many people without water… no snowpack, no water.
Will San Francisco welcome the refugees? – too many people, water fading.
Will Chicago welcome the refugees? – lotsa people, Lake Michigan smells like dying fish. Tap water may taste… fishy. Future uncertain.
Where to go?
Petroleum, although when set on fire releases radiation (energy) stored from millions of years of photosynthetic evolution, is not an energy resource. It is a buried material resource. Our economy only values the released radiation. However, the released matter (that was sequestered by evolutionary life and determines today’s sea level) has reverted the planet’s atmosphere (through carbon dioxide equivalent of 430 ppme) to a previous geologic condition when polar ice caps did not exist. This is a systemic economic error/failure that will decimate all higher life forms (millions of species) and most of the heritage of humanity (such as seaports like Miami, New York, etc.)
No investments should be made in hydrocarbon mining or further burning.
Joe,
Sounds good. Do you have a release date?
[JR: April-ish.]
OK. Great! I look forward to it.
Can Houston survive inaction on climate change? Answer: NO