Justice

These are the first two videos of a lecture series given by Michael Sandel at Harvard.

The series can be found here.

I am no expert in philosophy but these lectures seem to me to be a great introduction to some philosophical issues. Sandel's teaching technique is also interesting bring to life what might otherwise be dry academic philosophy by using carefully chosen moral dilemmas.

Episode 1



Here are links to resources for the first video:

The lifeboat case - here

Jeremy Bentham - here

Beginner discussion guide - here

Advanced discussion guide - here


Episode 2



Beginner discussion guide - here

Advanced discussion guide - here

J.S.Mill - here

To listen to the rest of the lectures (episodes) follow the link at the top of this post.

Arctic sea ice 2011

Introduction

The decline in the Arctic Sea Ice continues. The Arctic Sea Ice minimum in 2011 was (depending on the research group and / or ice characteristic chosen) either the lowest or second lowest on record. While reading this post it is important to remember that the previous lowest Arctic Sea Ice level was in 2007. In fact the 2007 minimum was a complete surprise, being much lower than any one had expected for many years.

Before investigating the detail of this year's minimum here is a video giving an introduction to Arctic Sea Ice.



The second video looks at the 2011 Arctic Sea Ice minimum in more detail.

The video starts with Joe Bastardi. Bastardi continually attempts to argue that there is nothing to worry about with the Arctic Sea Ice. The video shows that his predictions are not even close.



Ice characteristics measured

There are three different ice characteristics that are measured: sea ice extent, sea ice area and sea ice volume

The satellites measure ice in grid cells measuring 25 km by 25 km. For the extent measure if the amount of ice in a cell is over a given threshold (usually 15%) then the whole cell is considered to be 100% ice. Area determines how much actual ice there is. For a more detailed description see this link.

Sea ice volume measures the amount of ice by multiplying the area by the thickness of the ice.

The results

There are five main research groups that report on Arctic sea ice: University of Bremen, IJIS, NSDIC, Piomas and Cryosphere Today.

University of Bremen

According the a research group at the University of Bremen, Arctic Ice Extent had reached "a new historic minimum". See this link for details. The researchers further add:

It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences.

University of Bremen find the minimum 2011 about 1% lower than that of 2007.

Cryosphere Today

The Cryosphere Today Arctic Sea Ice Area reached a record minimum in 2011. The 2007 minimum value was 2.9194391 million square kilometres and the 2011 value was 2.9047398 million square kilometres. These values can be found at this link. For the 2007 value look at the row starting with 2007.6849 and for the 2011 value row 2011.6931.

Below is a graphical representation of the Cryosphere Today data:


Another method of displaying Arctic Ice Area is by a 365 day rolling average as illustrated below:


Both graphics clearly show the decline since satellite measurements started in 1979. Note also the dramatic declines since 2007.

PIOMAS

Imagine two years with the same sea ice extent but year 1 has an average ice depth of 1 metre and year 2 has an average ice depth of 2 metres. Even though extent will measure the two year as identical year 2 will have twice the amount - volume - of ice as year 1. PIOMAS attempts to measure the volume of ice in the Arctic. It uses an ice model but has been carefully validated. See this link for details.

Here is a graph showing the current year (up to the time of writing this post) compared with 2007. It is clear that according to PIOMAS 2011 ice volume has been below that of 2007 for the whole year and reached a new ice minimum this year.


For all of the yearly PIOMAS curves since 2002 see this link.

The chart below shows the PIOMAS ice volume trend since 1980.


NSIDC

In 2011 the NSIDC reported the second lowest ice extent, after 2007.

The minima from 2007 according go NSDIC are:

Year	Millions of square km
2007	4.17
2008	4.55
2009	5.10
2010	4.78
2011	4.33
1979 to 2010 Average	6.29

The NSIDC long term trend is like all of the others that I have displayed in this post - the trend is down. See the diagram below:



IJIS

IJIS also reported the second lowest Arctic sea ice extent for 2011, as shown in the diagram below:


Ice Trend

In the previous section I have displayed charts from Cryosphere Today, PIOMAS and NSIDC that clearly show a declining trend in Arctic Sea Ice since satellite measurements began in 1979.

Some people have made the claim that 30 years is too short a period of time to make such a judgement and that the Arctic Sea Ice was also at low levels during the 1930s, therefore there is nothing surprising in the current measurements.

It is possible to determine the levels of Arctic Sea Ice for the era before the direct satellite measurement. Two scientists Walsh and Chapman have developed such a data set. They used reports compiled by MET Offices and Glaciology Institutes in the UK, Canada, Denmark and Norway.

Statistical blogger, Tamino, has used the Walsh and Chapman data to produce the chart below source:


That data shows that the sea ice was quite stable from 1880 to 1960. After 1960 the sea ice level began to decline and that the decline since 2000 has been very dramatic.

Causes of the decline

The University of Bremen group discussed near the beginning of this post stated clearly that the decline in Arctic Sea Ice resulted from man-made global warming.

The GISS temperature anomaly map below shows clearly that the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet. (Most of the polar regions are between 1 degree and 4 degrees warmer than the 1951 to 1980 time period.) Simple intuition indicates that such warming will help to melt ice.


In the second video above, Dr Julienne Stroeve, presents a more detailed argument supporting the view that the decline in Arctic ice is largely the result of global warming:

• the global climate models all show ice decline (though less than is actually occurring)
• if the climate models are run without the carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere (by human activities) then they don't show any ice decline.

Why is the level of Arctic sea ice important?

As the first video demonstrates the Arctic sea ice has:

• an important role in the managing of planetary temperature, less ice means higher temperatures globally
• an important role in maintaining global ocean currents, which have important influences on climate all over the planet.

What about Antarctica and global sea ice?

Antarctic sea ice has increased by 1% per decade during the satellite era. The causes of this are debated amongst scientists. If you look at the temperature anomaly chart above it is clear that the Antarctic sea ice has not increased because of cooling in the Antarctic region. It is clear that Antarctica is warming very quickly. The most likely reason for the small increase in Antarctic sea ice relates to stronger winds due to increased ozone. Other possible causes are increased precipitation and increased glacial run off, both caused by the warming process. See this link for some discussion of this issue. There is evidence that Antarctic sea ice was at a much higher level before the satellite era. See this link for details.

Some people make the claim that there has been little change in Global Sea Ice in the last 30 years. This claim is easily falsifiable as shown in this post.

One Athiest's Creed

Here is a video by Peter Hadfield, who runs the Potholer54 and Potholer54debunks YouTube channels.

Some Christians are of the belief that it is impossible for non-believers to be moral.

Here is Hadfield's comprehensive response to that claim:




In the video below Hadfield describes his moral beliefs which he calls An Athiest's Creed:



This makes incredible sense to me.

Did Julia Gillard Lie?

It is often claimed that Julia Gillard is a liar on the basis that she said before the last election that she would not introduce a Carbon Tax. The argument continues that as she is now introducing a Carbon Tax she lied. Some people have taken to calling her JuLIAR.

There are two issues to consider here:

1. What did Gillard actually say before the last election?

2. What is the nature of the legislation that is currently before the parliament?

The day before the election the Australian published an article on Gillard that can be found at this link.

Here is the direct quote from Gillard from that article:

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme mentioned in the quote is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) that was negotiated between the Rudd Government and the then Opposition led by Malcolm Turnbull. (The Opposition kicked out Turnbull, but only by one vote, the then reneged on the agreed ETS.)

So she ruled out a Carbon Tax but not an Emissions Trading Scheme.

See this post and this post for analyses of the differences between a Carbon Tax and an Emissions Trading Scheme.

So what is the Government introducing a Carbon Tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)?

The clear answer is that it is an ETS.

There is an interesting wrinkle though. For the first few years of the scheme it will operate somewhat like a Carbon Tax as the price per tonne of carbon released will be charged at a fixed price ($23 per tonne). There are differences though as the permits can be traded.

The reason why there will be an initial price placed on carbon emissions is to facilitate the transition to a full ETS and avoid the problems of excess permits that occurred in the early years of the European ETS.

So the simple answer to the question: did Gillard Lie, is clearly no.

She did not rule out an ETS before the election and she is now introducing an ETS to the parliament.

It is significant that the quote from Gillard came from the Australian newspaper. This is not some left of centre paper. The Australian has made its life work to destroy the Gillard Government.

Here is a link with comments by Gillard on how the price mechanism would work.

The best speech in the Federal Parliament given on the topic of Carbon Pricing was by Malcolm Turnbull. The speech can be found here.

This post emphasises the importance of checking original sources. For an interesting take on this issue see this post.

The climate policy worked out by the Multi-party committee - Government, Independents and Greens - is based on the Garnaut review, the summary of which can be found here.

How do you know?

Recently a very good friend of mine claimed that the recent volcano in South America put out more carbon dioxide that humans did in a year. I tried to explain to him that this claim was not true and that my source was the United States Geological Union who were experts on geological issues. Here is a link to the source that I quoted. (Note that the web page gives a link to a recent article on this issue).

This conversation highlighted to me the issue of sources of information. There is an enormous amount of misinformation currently in circulation. How does the sort of misinformation claimed by my friend get so widely disseminated? I think the reason is that when people hear ideas that they agree with they don't bother to check out the validity of the idea of the reliability of the source.

The video below by Peter Harfield, who produces the potholer54 channel of on YouTube discusses the importance of checking sources of claims that are made in the media.



I first became aware of this issue of sources when reading an online article by Andrew Bolt in 2006. the article was on Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. The article can be found here.

The article was online so I started researching using Google. I fairly quickly started to have doubts about Bolt's claims.

Bolt's first objection was this one:

1: Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man's gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures. Only dumb journalists and bad scientists in the pay of Big Oil pretended there was any genuine debate.

In fact, as Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University has demonstrated, Gore relies on a bungled survey reported in Science.

The first article that I found was here.

It appeared that Peiser was finding difficulty maintaining the claims that Bolt relied on.

I then came across this email communication. In it Peiser seems to retract his major claim and at the finish notes:

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact.

That, of cause is not the sort of message that Andrew Bolt tries to give on his site.

I then checked out Bolt's third criticism:

3: Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.

In fact, as the University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

I Googled Severinghaus and first I found articles about rapid warming in Greenland. I eventually found articles that discussed the last deglaciation, including this one. In these articles and in an email reply to me Seveinghaus emphasised that carbon dioxide was very important in the last deglaciation, providing between 35% and 50% of the warming. I later found this article where Severinghaus cries foul on Bolt's reporting.

When I returned to Bolt's article and re-read his point 3 I realised that Bolt had not directly stated that Severinghaus agreed with Bolt's interpretation, so technically Bolt had not mislead his readers. But most people who read the article would expect that the expert that he referenced would agree with Bolt's argument - and the expert clearly does not agree with Bolt's argument.

After that experience, I realised that it was very important to check the sources of claims that are made in the media, which is the point that Peter Harfield is making in his video.

Expert opinion on climate change

I regularly receive emails attacking basic Climate Science. Such attacks also appear frequently in some media publications.

It is possible to spend a great deal of time checking these claims, but this is not a viable option for most people.

A quicker method is to check the opinions of acknowledged experts, which would include our premier science organisations.

This post looks at the views of eight major science organisations and demonstrates that they all support the view that humans are warming the planet dangerously. It finishes with link to fifty more science organisations with similar views.

The UK MET Office

This post will reference many documents, which would require a great deal of time to fully read so I will start with a brief video from the UK MET Office:



The UK MET Office view is clear:

The current changes are very unusual and can not be explained simply as part of any natural cycle, such as El Nino and La Nina, which cause the warming and cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, which affects world temperature. Natural cycles can lead to periods with little or no warming and other periods with rapid warming. However, what is important is looking at the longer term trends in temperature,which are rising, and which scientists believe is almost certainly caused by human activity.

When studying climate change, scientists draw their evicence from many sources. Are humans contributing to the warming we are observing? Or could it be natural causes and changes to theclimate? Scientists, such as those at the Met Office Hadley Centre, are continuing to look at all the possible effects, both man-made and natural. However, it is widely understood that our emissions of greenhouse gases are causing changes to our climate.

At the MET Office FAQ site the following is given in answer to the question: "Can anything be done about Climate Change?"

On present evidence, global warming could be slowed if emissions of methane and carbon dioxide were reduced. The main artificial sources of these gases are (a) for methane - agriculture, emissions from landfill sites and natural gas and (b) for carbon dioxide - the burning of fossil fuels, cutting down and burning trees. This may seem to be something that only governments or large organisations can tackle, but the individual can also contribute significantly by, for example, not using a car unnecessarily and recycling.

For more information about the MET Office's view of Climate Change follow this link.

The Australian Academy of Science

The Australian academy of Science is Australia's foremost science organisation. In 2010 it released a report on climate science. The report can be found here.

The report begins with the following paragraph:

The Earth's climate has changed. The global average surface temperature has increased over the last century and many other associated changes have been observed. The available evidence implies that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause. It is expected that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at business-as-usual rates, global temperatures will further increase significantly over the coming century and beyond.

The rest of the 24 page report provides the evidence to substantiate the claims in the first paragraph.

The CSIRO

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is Australia's premier science research organisation.

In 2011 CSIRO published a booklet called Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia. The document can be downloaded here.

The opening paragraph of the document states:

Climate change is one of the greatest ecological, economic, and social challenges facing us today.The scientific evidence that human activities are contributing to climate change is compelling, but society is increasingly seeking information about the nature of the evidence and what can be done in response to a changing climate. This book provides some of that much-needed information from some of Australia’s leading climate scientists.

Chapter 2 notes the following Key Messages

• Greenhouse gases (GHGs) influence the Earth’s climate because they interact with flows of heat energy in the atmosphere.

• The main GHGs influenced directly by human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,ozone, and synthetic gases. Water vapour, although an important GHG, is not influenced directly byhuman activities.

• The amount of warming produced by a given rise in GHG concentrations depends on ‘feedback’ processes in the climate system, which can either amplify or dampen a change. The net effect of all climate feedbacks is to amplify the warming caused by increasing CO2 and other GHGs of human origin.

• The atmospheric level of CO2 (the most important GHG influenced by human activities) rose from about280 ppm in 1800 to 386 ppm in 2009, and is currently increasing at nearly 2 ppm per year.

• CO2 levels are rising mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Over half of thisCO2 input to the atmosphere is offset by natural CO2 ‘sinks’ in the land and oceans, which constitute a massive natural ecosystem service helping to mitigate humanity’s emissions.

• To have a 50:50 chance of keeping human-induced average global warming below 2ºC, it will be necessary to stop almost all CO2 emissions before cumulative emissions reach one trillion tonnes of carbon. The world has already emitted more than half of this quota since the industrial revolution, and (at current growth rates for CO2 emissions) the rest will be emitted by the middle of this century.

• Climate change is a risk management issue – the longer we take to act and the weaker our actions, the greater the risk of dangerous outcomes.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has produced a document called State of the Climate 2010

The report can be found here.

The report concludes with the following observations:

Australia will be hotter in coming decades

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at rates consistent with past trends, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to

5.0 ºC by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.

Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades

In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in southern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.

It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.

Climate change is real

Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

UPDATE: The 2012 State of the Climate Report has been released and can be found at this link.


US Academy of Science

The US Academy of Science (the peak Science body of the US) has also produced a report on climate science which can be accessed here.

The first conclusion of the report (found on page 3) is:

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems

That conclusion is supported by the following dot points:

• Earth is warming. Detailed observations of surface temperature assembled
  and analyzed by several different research groups show that the planet’s average surface temperature was 1.4ºF (0.8ºC) warmer during the first decade of the 21st century than during the first decade of the 20th century, with the most pronounced warming over the past three decades. These data are corroborated by a variety of independent observations that indicate warming in other parts of the Earth system, including the cryosphere (snow- and ice covered regions), the lower atmosphere, and the oceans.

• Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—for energy is the single largest human driver of climate change, but agriculture, forest clearing, and certain industrial activities also make significant contributions.

• Natural climate variability leads to year-to-year and decade-to-decade fluctuations in temperature and other climate variables, as well as substantial regional differences, but cannot explain or offset the long-term warming trend.

• Global warming is closely associated with a broad spectrum of other changes, such as increases in the frequency of intense rainfall, decreases in Northern Hemisphere snow cover and Arctic sea ice, warmer and more frequent hot days and nights, rising sea levels, and widespread ocean acidification.

Joint Academies Statement

Thirteen Academies of Science have regularly made a statement on climate change. The academies are those of: the US, UK. France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, the G8 plus 5 group.

In their most recent statement (found here) they give the following recommendations:

Recognizing the vital role that low carbon energy systems must play in facilitating a sustainable global economy, the G8+5 nations need to seize all
opportunities to coordinate our simultaneous work on the climate and economic agendas, and to build global collaboration.

We call on all governments to:

• agree at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen to adopt a long-term global goal and near-term emission reduction targets that will deliver an approximately 50% reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels by 2050;

• significantly increase fundamental international research on the earth’s climate, on low carbon and climate resilient technologies, and on ways to protect and enhance the resilience of natural systems to climate change;

• identify the common strategic priorities for developing and implementing environmentally sustainable technologies for adaptation and mitigation;

• collaborate in the implementation of low carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure and technologies, and in the implementation of innovative incentives,
  through the use of economic and regulatory instruments, to accelerate adoption of clean “green” technologies;

• support and enable developing countries’ access to and use of the technologies needed to deliver a sustainable low carbon energy future;

• pursue the development, demonstration and deployment of economically efficient and technologically safe CCS, and explore the establishment of standards for CCS;

• pursue international cooperation on safe and secure nuclear power capacity, the safe disposal of nuclear waste, and the reduction of the risk of proliferation;

• substantially increase investment into the development and deployment of technologies for adaptation, and increase funding specifically for the most vulnerable countries.

Education and public awareness programmes will be essential as we pursue this agenda. We must build on the current enthusiasm and engagement of a younger generation.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA is one of the major oceanic and atmospheric research and reporting organisations. Each year NOAA produces a document called State of the Climate. The full report for 2010 can be downloaded here and the summary here.

Page 6 of the summary:

The World Continues to Warm

• Multiple indicators, same bottom line conclusion

Consistent and unmistakable signal from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans

The conclusion makes the following points:

• 2010 global average surface temperature among the two warmest on record

• 2010 report tracks 41 climate indicators. Long-term trends continue to show the world is warming

The Royal Society

The Royal Society is the most prestigious science organisation in the world. It is Britain's National Academy of Science.

The Royal Society produced a document on Climate Science in 2010, which can be downloaded here.

The report begins as follows:

Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations and for ecosystems on which humanity depends. Consequently, climate change has been and continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate.

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has

been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses.

I could keep discussing the views of more science organisations, but this post is already quite long.

UPDATE

The World Bank

In November 2012 the World Bank released a report titled: "Turn Down the Heat:     Why a 4⁰ Warmer World Must Be Avoided. Here is a link to the document.

The first paragraph of the Executive Summary sets the tone of the whole document.

Without further commitments and action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world is likely to warm by more than 3°C above the preindustrial climate. Even with the current mitigation commitments and pledges fully implemented, there is roughly a 20 percent likelihood of exceeding 4°C by 2100. If they are not met, a warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s. Such a warming level and associated sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, or more, by 2100 would not be the end point: a further warming to levels over 6°C, with several meters of sea-level rise, would likely occur over the following centuries.


PricewaterhouseCoopers

PricewaterhouseCoopers trades as PwC. In November 2012 it released a report called: "Too late for two degrees? Low carbon economy index 2012". The report can be downloaded from this link. Discussion of this report can be found in this page of the PwC website.

The video below is from the PwC website linked to above. It makes a number of important points: 1. The longer we wait to get serious about emissions reduction the harder the task will become, 2. To refuse to reduce emissions is extremely dangerous, and, 3. Countries that develop the new technologies to meet the challenge will have an important new source of wealth.



To quote from page 2 the report:

The PwC Low Carbon Economy Index evaluates the rate of decarbonisation of the global economy that is needed to limit warming to 2°C. This is based on a carbon budget that would stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm and give a 50% probability of limiting warming to 2°C.

This report shows that global carbon intensity decreased between 2000 and 2011 by around 0.8% a year. In 2011, carbon intensity decreased by just 0.7%. The global economy now needs to cut carbon intensity by 5.1% every year from now to 2050 to achieve this carbon budget. This required rate of decarbonisation has not been seen even in a single year since the mid-20th century when these records began. Keeping to the 2°C carbon budget will require unprecedented and sustained reductions over four decades.

Governments’ ambitions to limit warming to 2°

For information on another fifty science organisations that support the climate consensus position follow this link.

How agriculture is changing the face of our planet

I have sometimes came across claims that human activities are too puny to change the planet. You only have to open you eyes and look around to see that the claim is not true.

In this talk Jon Foley discusses the impact that agriculture is having on the planet, and puts that in context with the huge challenges of the next few decades when global population will increase by at least 2 billion people!

Gymnist with a ball

I like the title given to this video:

Someone Should Have Told This Girl That This Can't Be Done